Query DHIS2 analytics

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a read-oriented query returning aggregated values by period/org unit, but it does not disclose authentication needs, output shape, or any limitations beyond the single-indicator constraint.

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: two sentences, no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the required workflow hint is placed second, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the necessary prerequisite workflow and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, there is no output schema and no discussion of response structure, pagination, result size, or error behavior, so some operational details remain unclear.

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 already describes all parameters with defaults and examples, so schema coverage is high. The description adds the prerequisite relationship to search_indicators, but otherwise does not meaningfully expand on what the schema already communicates.

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 returns aggregated values for one indicator, split by period, for one organisation unit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by positioning search_indicators as a prerequisite, making the purpose and scope easy to identify.

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 tells the agent to run search_indicators first to get the indicator id, which is practical workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, such as when multiple indicators or multiple organisation units are needed, but the scope is clear enough.

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