rta_salik_tariff

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the credential tier, the 2026-06-01 5% VAT change with concrete before/after amounts, and the fact that returned amounts are VAT-inclusive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then credential requirement, then the VAT detail, then the scope limitation. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; the VAT parentheticals are specific rather than padding.

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?

With zero params, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description only needs to supply credentials, timing nuance, and scope. It does all three, so nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema forbids additional properties, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters because none exist, leaving no semantic gap.

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 Salik toll tariff reference data'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling estimator tool salik_toll_estimate. However, it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts reference data with an estimate, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Tier 1, requires Dubai Pulse credentials') and a scope exclusion ('Account balances, trips, and violations are NOT exposed via any public API'), which steers the agent away from expecting account-level data. It does not name an alternative tool for estimates or violations, so guidance is contextual but not a full when/when-not routing.

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