Situation reports

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds that output includes yearly counts and recent report titles/links, which is helpful but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or auth requirements. With annotations, the description's contribution to transparency is moderate.

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 consists of two short, dense sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's output in one clause; the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted text.

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 has 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema exists to describe return values, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core purpose and a common use case. However, it could briefly mention that output schema details the structure, but this is minor given the existing schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'yearly counts' implicitly relates to the year parameters, but no new semantic information is added.

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 situation reports for a country, providing yearly counts and recent report titles/links from ReliefWeb. This specific verb+resource combination, along with the mention of the source, distinguishes it from sibling tools like conflict_events or asylum_applications.

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 explicitly advises using the tool to 'ground trends and anomalies from other tools in what was actually reported at the time,' giving clear context for when to use it. While it does not list explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the usage guidance is strong and practical.

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