mcp_iati_no_tool_disponible

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the intended invocation context and gives an example reason, but it never states what actually happens when the tool is called, such as whether it returns no data or simply records the reason. The role is inferable from the name but not fully disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured, with the call condition, an Args section, and an example. There is no filler, and the most important routing information appears first.

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?

For a simple fallback tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers when to use it, why to use it, the parameter semantics, and a usage example. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema only provides the parameter name, type, and default, with no description. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'reason' is a brief one-sentence explanation of why no tool applies, and it includes a concrete example. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies this as the deliberate fallback tool, stating that it is for topics that are not IATI activities or questions outside the scope of the loaded data. This distinguishes it from the IATI data tool siblings by defining exactly what it is not.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: call only when no other tool can answer the question. It also provides an example call. It does not enumerate sibling alternatives, but the routing criterion is specific enough to guide selection away from them.

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