agri_famine_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, what data is accessed, or any potential side effects. The description only mentions a reference classification without further detail.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no redundant information. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema and simple input, the description fails to explain what the assessment returns (e.g., classification levels, regions, dates). It leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output and scope.

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% (one parameter), and the description adds minimal value: it mentions FEWS NET IPC but does not explain expected country format or any constraints beyond the schema's 'Country name'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 famine risk assessment using FEWS NET IPC phase classification, specifying the verb (assess) and resource (famine risk), and distinguishes from sibling tools like agri_crop_health or agri_drought.

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 such as other agricultural or humanitarian tools. The description is a single statement without any context on appropriate use cases or when to avoid.

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