Estimate realistic end-to-end timelines for setting up a business in Dubai, covering licensing, approvals and residency steps so founders can plan each phase.
Return realistic end-to-end timelines for a Dubai setup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds nothing beyond a restatement of the output type. It omits meaningful behavioral context such as whether the timeline is deterministic, what assumptions it encodes (free zone vs mainland, visa vs licence phases), or the granularity of the estimates.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, preamble, or repetition of the tool name. Nothing in it is wasted, even if the content is thin.
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-value explanation is not required, and the absence of parameters limits what must be documented. Still, for a tool sitting among many overlapping setup/estimate siblings, the description does not say which setup phases or assumptions the timeline covers, leaving the agent to infer scope.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; this is the baseline 4 case. Schema description coverage is also reported as 100%, leaving nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 names a specific verb (Return) and resource (realistic end-to-end timelines) scoped to Dubai setup, which is more precise than a bare restatement of the name. However, it never differentiates itself from closely related siblings such as setup_advisor, analyze_setup_decision, pro_services_estimate, or einvoicing_timeline, so an agent must guess which timeline/estimate tool applies.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent questions (e.g. setup_advisor vs pro_services_estimate vs einvoicing_timeline). Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase 'Dubai setup', which is minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.