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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive traits. The description adds useful behavioral context by identifying the data source, SDG indicator, and the approximate country coverage, which helps agents set expectations about data availability. It does not mention the actual FIES time range, but that gap is minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by source/coverage and parameter format context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required), has a robust output schema, and well-documented annotations. The description covers the essential selection and invocation context: what is retrieved, from where, for whom, and with which code formats. It would be more complete with an explicit note that FIES survey data effectively starts around 2015, since the schema's 'earliest available: 1961' could mislead, and a brief routing note away from faostat.agriculture.food_security.

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 parameter descriptions are comprehensive (100% coverage), including country code formats and year defaults/ranges. The description mostly restates the country-code flexibility already documented in the schema, adding little new semantic value beyond reinforcing accepted formats.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Retrieve prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity (%)' and ties it to the Food Insecurity Experience Scale and SDG Indicator 2.1.2. This is specific enough to tell it apart from related FAOSTAT siblings like food_security or food_loss without needing a direct comparison.

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 gives clear selection context: country-level FIES data, source, SDG indicator, and ~140-country coverage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as faostat.agriculture.food_security, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback guidance.

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