Get a UNDP project output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what data the tool returns and the breakdown dimensions (fiscal year, donor), and 'Get one project output' signals a read-style operation. It does not mention error cases or authentication, but for a single-record retrieval this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then enumerates the returned content and the ID source. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with one required parameter fully covered by the schema and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It states exactly what will be returned and where to get the required ID, so no essential information is missing.

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 already describes output_id with an example, so baseline is 3 for high schema coverage. The description adds useful semantic context beyond the schema by stating that output IDs come from undp_get_project, which helps the agent locate valid identifiers. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one project output'), and enumerates the returned fields: CRS sector, gender marker, SDG tags, and budget/expenditure/disbursement by fiscal year and donor. It also distinguishes itself by noting output IDs come from undp_get_project, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed data for a single project output. It also provides a routing hint by saying output IDs come from undp_get_project, which tells the agent how to obtain valid inputs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for a simple getter.

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