Refugee population

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere; the description still adds real context the annotations do not: the result set is yearly series across five displacement categories, role inverts the direction of the data, results are paginated, and a second country can be cross-filtered. It stops short of noting coverage caveats, rate limits, or data vintage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the role switch and cross-filter, then pagination. No filler and nothing buried.

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 8 parameters, an output schema, and an open-world read annotation, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits only secondary context such as the data source/vintage or the fact that year_from/year_to default to a 10-year window rather than the full history.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's role and other_country explanations largely restate what the schema already documents in detail (including the same Egypt/Syria example), adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

"Yearly displacement figures for a country: refugees, asylum-seekers, IDPs, stateless and others" gives a concrete resource and enumerates the metric families returned, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It never names a sibling (e.g. asylum_applications, top_host_countries) to disambiguate against, which keeps it short of a 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?

The role semantics are spelled out with the default stated ("asylum" (default) = hosted in the country; "origin" = displaced from it) and a worked cross-filter example is given, so the agent knows which mode to pick for a given question. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the related asylum/durable_solutions tools, so no exclusions or alternatives are covered.

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