Humanitarian funding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context on the data provenance and what the payload compares, but says nothing about granularity of rows, missing-data behavior for countries without appeals, or volume of results returned.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and its key derived metric front-loaded, and no filler. It is slightly telegraphic (no leading verb), but every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The description supplies the source and the two quantities being compared, which is enough for an agent to call this correctly; only usage routing and data-coverage caveats are absent.

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%, and the schema documents country formats, the locale enum, and the year_from/year_to defaults, so the description is not needed for parameter meaning. It adds only the implicit notion of a per-year series, which is baseline-level value.

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?

Names the exact resource and comparison ('appeal requirements vs funding received per year') plus the derived metric (coverage percentage) and the upstream source (OCHA FTS via HDX). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like food_security, refugee_population, or country_profile without opening any schema.

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 says what the data is but never when to reach for this tool over alternatives such as country_profile or latest_statistics, nor any prerequisite or scope caveat. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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