Get a UNDP project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose safety, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description lists what is returned but not the response format or potential failure modes (e.g., project not found). This is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then lists content, and ends with ID provenance. There is no fluff or repetition. Every clause earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 no output schema, the description partially fills the gap by listing the categories of data returned (dates, budget, outputs, locations, documents). It also mentions the optional include toggles, giving the agent awareness of response tailoring. However, it does not specify the exact structure or type of the return value (e.g., a JSON object), nor any error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are already clear for each parameter (e.g., 'Include the project's outputs'). The description adds value by explaining the origin of the project_id and the fact that it's a full record, but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles documentation.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full record for one UNDP project'), and enumerates the content: dates, budget and expenditure by fiscal year, outputs, subnational locations, and linked documents. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting project ids come from undp_search_projects, making it obvious this is the single-record fetch tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent where to obtain project ids ('come from undp_search_projects'), which is essential routing guidance. It implies the tool is for when you already have a specific project id, and the optional include_* parameters signal that the caller can tailor the response. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like undp_get_output or undp_aggregate_projects, leaving some inference to the agent.

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