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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: data provenance, CC BY 4.0 licensing, and 'no auth required', plus the current-and-projected time dimension. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination behavior, but those are less critical given the annotations and schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states purpose, content, time scope, and key filters; the second covers provenance, license, and auth. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only lookup tool with fully described parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It supplies the selection-relevant facts an agent needs—what the data measures, that it is current/projected, and that no auth is required.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters including enum values, ISO3 constraints, and pagination defaults. The description only restates a subset of filter names and the phase scale, adding no material semantic value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IPC data'), then clarifies the content: population counts by food-insecurity phase, current and projected. It is clearly not a generic dataset search, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring tools like hdx-hapi.coordination.humanitarian_needs or faostat.agriculture.food_security.

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 context for when this tool applies: retrieving IPC classification data with phase, country, admin, and projection scope. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated scope is enough for an agent to route IPC-specific requests here.

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