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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds operational context beyond them: pagination behavior, default page size of 10, aggregate totals caveat, time range, and license/no-cost terms. This gives the agent practical expectations about the response flow. No information contradicts the annotations.

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 four sentences with no filler; each sentence adds a distinct type of value: definitional scope, legal context, filter guidance, and operational/pagination/licensing details. The core distinguishing content is front-loaded before the more generic boilerplate. It is dense but fully skimmable.

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 the description need not explain return values, and it covers everything else an agent needs to invoke correctly: filters, pagination, default size, time range, popuulation scope, and data license. Combined with rich annotations and a complete input schema, there are no practical gaps for calling the tool correctly. The conceptual framing also supports correct routing among the larger UNHCR tool family.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including examples and ranges, so the description's mention of 'Filter by year, country of origin ISO3 (coo), or country of asylum ISO3 (coa)' essentially restates the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics that the schema does not already provide. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get UNHCR durable solutions data') and immediately disambiguates the three pathways: voluntary repatriation, resettlement, and naturalization/citizenship grants. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling UNHCR endpoints like unhcr.population.statistics and unhcr.asylum.applications. The scope ('refugees and IDPs, 1951–present') further sharpens the resource boundary.

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 frames when to use this tool by defining durable solutions as the three legal pathways out of displacement, so an agent can infer relevance for repatriation/resettlement/citizenship queries. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that misrouting among UNHCR siblings is unlikely.

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