setup_advisor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It details the return structure ('jurisdiction, candidate free zones, reasoning, warnings, estimated cost range, timeline, and next steps') and mentions a required 'knowledge' block, providing good transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and key features. It efficiently lists return fields without excessive verbosity, though some detail about the return structure could be inferred from the output schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the tool's function, inputs, and outputs, including the knowledge block requirement. It lacks explicit prerequisites or limitations, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds context by noting the tool 'cross-references curated free zones, visas, banks, and tax rules', but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Recommend the best jurisdiction for setting up a business in Dubai.' It also mentions cross-referencing free zones, visas, banks, and tax rules, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'free_zone_details', 'compare_free_zones', and 'bank_recommendation' which handle specific aspects.

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?

The description implies this is the primary tool for initial business setup recommendations, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives. Siblings exist for deeper dives, but no explicit 'when not to use' or preferred sequencing is given.

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