Forecast (naive)

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a statistical extrapolation and is not official planning data, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It also instructs the user to present the result with a caveat.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then add an important caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 availability of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the tool description adequately covers the projection methodology and its limitations. It could mention the output format briefly, but the output schema likely handles that.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a naive linear projection of a displacement metric 1-5 years ahead based on the last 10 years. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from UNHCR planning figures, providing specificity beyond a mere verb-resource pair.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools like 'trend_analysis'.

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