displacement

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose provenance (UN OCHA HAPI), scope (country-level only, no subnational), and currency semantics (latest reporting period per country, implying no historical series), which is real behavioral value. It stops short of saying whether the data is cached, how fresh the upstream feed is, or how partial coverage is handled when a country has no recent report.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; source, subject, and aggregation level arrive immediately. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence and omits a verb, which slightly weakens actionability but costs nothing in length.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the geographic and temporal scope are covered. What remains missing for a query tool with a non-obvious 'detail' parameter is the parameter's effect and any sibling routing, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 single parameter 'detail' has a default of 'short' and 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its allowed values. The phrase 'latest reporting period per country' describes the default output shape but does not explain what changing 'detail' would do, leaving the only tunable knob opaque.

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 concrete resource (IDP and refugee figures) and a source (UN OCHA HAPI) plus the aggregation level (country-level, latest reporting period), which is enough to know what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling unhcr_refugees, so an agent cannot tell from the text which of the two displacement sources to pick.

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 guidance on when to call this versus unhcr_refugees, worldpop, or relief_disasters, all of which overlap in subject matter. It states what the data is but never states a condition for choosing it or any exclusion.

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