List UNDP donor countries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses query-vs-list behavior and that results include budget and contributing organisations, but it does not state defaults, pagination behavior, or whether include_organisations significantly changes response size (the schema's 'Verbose' note helps but lives outside the description).

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the invocation pattern immediately following. Every clause contributes information, and the formatting makes it scannable.

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 five-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description captures the main purpose and two usage modes but omits default list size/ordering and pagination expectations. These are material gaps for an agent deciding whether to pass limit/offset/sort_by, so the description is adequate but not 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 only 40% (query and include_organisations have descriptions; limit, offset, sort_by do not beyond the enum). The description adds meaning by tying query to lookup and 'ranked by contribution' to sorting, but it leaves limit and offset semantics entirely to the schema's bare types.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('countries and territories that contribute funding to UNDP'), and adds the distinguishing content ('total budget and the contributing organisations behind each'). This sets it apart from sibling list tools like undp_list_operating_units or undp_list_regions based on the donor-country domain alone.

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 gives clear in-tool usage ('Use query to look one up, or list them ranked by contribution'), so an agent knows when to query versus list all. However, it never addresses when to choose this tool over the sibling undp_search_donors or another alternative, leaving that selection to inference.

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