Get an operating unit's portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the upstream document is large, projects are paginated, and outputs are summarised by default. This helps agents anticipate response size and default verbosity, though it does not detail pagination mechanics or output shape.

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 sentences with no filler. The main resource is front-loaded, and the pagination/summarisation caveats are delivered immediately after, giving agents the most decision-relevant information 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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return contents (projects, outputs, subnational locations), and important behavior (pagination and summarisation). It lacks explicit response-structure details and pagination parameter guidance, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 67%, so the schema already documents iso3, query, include_outputs, and include_locations. The description adds value by stating that outputs are summarised by default, which clarifies the include_outputs parameter. However, it does not explain limit/offset semantics beyond the generic pagination mention.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one operating unit's (country office's) full project portfolio'. It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like undp_list_operating_units (list vs. one unit) and undp_get_project (project vs. operating-unit portfolio).

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as undp_search_projects or undp_get_project. The description implies this is the 'full portfolio' retrieval path but never explicitly states conditions, exclusions, or trade-offs between sibling tools.

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