Refugee population

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing pagination ('Paginated'), default year ranges (10 years back from year_from, latest for year_to), and default limit (100). It also explains the behavior of the role and other_country parameters beyond the schema. No destructive actions are described, consistent with 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 extremely concise: three sentences that cover the main purpose, role parameter, and optional cross-filter/pagination. All information is front-loaded in the first sentence. There is no superfluous text; every sentence earns its place.

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 7 parameters, a diverse set of sibling tools, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: data type, role, cross-filter, and pagination. It could mention error handling or the lack of filtering beyond country/role, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope and basic usage.

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 adds an example for other_country (e.g., Syrians in Egypt) and clarifies the role parameter with 'hosted IN' vs 'displaced FROM.' However, much of this information is already present in the schema descriptions (e.g., country ISO3 examples, year defaults). The added value is modest.

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 that the tool provides 'Yearly displacement figures for a country: refugees, asylum-seekers, IDPs, stateless and others.' This specifies the type of data and the resource (a country's displacement figures), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like asylum_applications and asylum_decisions. However, it lacks an imperative verb like 'List' or 'Get,' which slightly reduces clarity.

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 explains the role parameter and the optional cross-filter with other_country, giving guidance on how to query for hosted vs origin populations and cross-reference second countries. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when displacement figures are needed vs asylum applications), relying on implicit differentiation. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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