Estimate annual British-curriculum school fees in Dubai by stage and check KHDA fee rules, including the 2026-27 fee freeze.
British-curriculum annual school fee range plus the KHDA fee rules, including the 2026-27 fee freeze (no increase allowed that year).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | One of: foundation_primary, primary, secondary. | primary |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes real domain behavior by stating that the output is a range (not a precise figure) and that KHDA fee rules incl. the 2026-27 freeze are baked in, but it says nothing about where the numbers come from, how current they are, or whether non-British curricula are excluded.
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?
A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant element (annual fee range, British curriculum) is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a stated action, which slightly weakens it.
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 shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a cost-estimate tool the description leaves open whether the result covers one school, a cohort of schools, or a typical range, and how it relates to the sibling khda school-lookup tools — a gap the agent must guess at.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'stage' parameter is documented in the schema with an enum list and a default, so the description need not restate it. It does implicitly constrain the domain to British-curriculum (relevant to the stage values), but adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description states a concrete deliverable: an annual fee range for British-curriculum schools plus the applicable KHDA fee rules, with the 2026-27 freeze called out. An agent can tell this apart from khda_search_school or khda_list_curricula, though the description never uses an explicit verb (estimate/return) and never names the sibling it replaces.
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?
There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from alternatives such as khda_search_school (for finding a specific school) or rent_estimate/dewa_bill_estimate for other cost categories. The scope is implied by the subject matter only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.