Food security (IPC)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with data provenance ('IPC via HDX'), the 'latest available' default, and the definitional note that phase 3+ is the headline, but says nothing about rate limits, coverage gaps, or whether a country can lack an IPC analysis.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the metric and scope are front-loaded, and the trailing provenance tag ('Data: IPC via HDX') is short and earns its place by signaling the open-world source.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations plus a 100%-described 3-param schema cover the rest. The description supplies the interpretive context (phase scale, headline phase 3+) an agent needs to call and explain results correctly.

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% — year (default latest), locale (en/ar with RTL note), and country (name or ISO3) are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (IPC food-insecurity phase breakdown) with the exact output shape (people per phase 1–5) and the headline metric (phase 3+ 'crisis or worse'). This is unambiguous and clearly separable from generic siblings like latest_statistics or country_profile.

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 trigger context is implied by 'Latest ... for a country' — an agent can infer this is the tool for food-insecurity questions about a specific country. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative (e.g., for non-IPC hunger indicators or cross-country comparison).

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