humanitarian_funding

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool provides status information, but does not clarify if it is read-only, what data source or freshness is used, or any rate limits. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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 very concise, consisting of one short sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. It wastes no words. However, it may be too concise, lacking sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should provide some indication of the output structure (e.g., returns a list of crises with requested and received amounts). It does not. The tool is simple with one parameter, but the lack of output context reduces completeness. Sibling tools exist but are not differentiated.

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?

The input schema has a single optional parameter 'year' with a schema description stating it defaults to the current year. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline 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 indicates the tool reports on humanitarian funding status with a comparison of requested vs received amounts for crises. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like humanitarian_crises (which list crises) and humanitarian_displacement (which tracks displacement). However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., per crisis, global aggregate).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as humanitarian_crises or humanitarian_reports could offer related information, but the description does not help the agent decide which is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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