Food security (IPC)

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing the data source (IPC via HDX) and output structure (phase breakdown with headline). This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, though it could mention real-time update caveats.

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 two sentences, front-loading the essential purpose and data source. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the output and data source. It could explicitly note the optionality of the year parameter, but the schema already does so.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'country' is the main filter and indicates the output is a breakdown per country. It adds moderate context beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'Latest IPC food-insecurity phase breakdown for a country' and specifies the output details (people per phase 1–5, phase 3+ headline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on 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 implies usage for food security data retrieval but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'conflict_events' or 'demographics'. Usage context is inferred.

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