rental_dispute_guide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the fee is computed only when annual_rent is supplied, using an explicit formula (3.5%, AED 500 floor, AED 20,000 cap). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the conditional behavior follows immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one optional parameter plus its conditional fee logic are fully covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this read-only guide tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's terse 'optional annual rent' note by spelling out exactly what supplying it produces and the full fee formula. That is meaningful added semantics for the single optional parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Return the Rental Disputes Centre (RDC) filing guide' — and describes the conditional fee computation. The resource is concrete and distinct from rental-adjacent siblings like ejari_guide or rera_rent_increase, though it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for RDC filing questions, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over ejari_guide, rera_rent_increase, or other 'guide' siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.