Humanitarian funding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that data is per year and includes coverage percentage, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as data latency or filtering behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key purpose and data source. It is concise and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

The description adequately covers the data type (requirements vs funding, coverage percentage), granularity (per year, for a country), and source. With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return format. It is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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% (all parameters described in schema). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only mentions the country context. Baseline 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 the tool retrieves humanitarian appeal requirements vs funding received per year for a country, including coverage percentage and data source. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like asylum_applications or conflict_events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to prefer this over compare_countries or trend_analysis for cross-country or trend purposes. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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