pop_displacement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without revealing traits such as data recency, return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's 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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could benefit from a slight structure (e.g., listing data source or return type) without adding verbosity.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the data source (UNHCR) but lacks information on what the output looks like (e.g., data format, fields). For a tool with no output schema, the description should hint at return structure.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Country name or 3-letter ISO code', making it neutral—neither helpful nor harmful.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('displaced population data'), and the source ('from UNHCR'). It distinguishes the tool's focus on UNHCR data, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'humanitarian_displacement', which likely covers similar displacement data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'humanitarian_displacement'. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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