get_appeals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool accesses appeals, but does not mention whether it returns a list, how pagination works, or any potential side effects (as a read operation, none are expected, but this is not explicitly stated).

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 brief, front-loaded single sentence with no wasted words. It could arguably benefit from more detail, but for a simple read tool it is appropriately concise.

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 simple schema (2 optional params with defaults) and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about what constitutes an 'appeal' and how this tool relates to the sibling DREF tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, with limit and offset already documented. The description adds a little context by indicating the purpose is funding-related, but it does not explain the parameters further. The baseline of 3 applies because the 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 uses a clear verb 'Access' and specifies the resource 'humanitarian appeals for funding', which distinguishes it from DREF-specific sibling tools. However, 'Access' is somewhat generic; 'list' or 'get' would be more explicit, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for appeals rather than DREFs or emergencies, the description does not explicitly state this or mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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