List UNDP focus areas

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states that it lists counts and optionally top donors. It does not clarify filtering behavior, defaults when optional parameters are omitted, how budget_source is interpreted, or what the response shape looks like.

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 concise, front-loaded with the resource and core output metrics, with the optional behavior in a separate sentence. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs to understand what the tool returns.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple list tool and names its main outputs, but it omits how year, budget_source, and operating_unit combine or what happens when none are supplied. Minor gaps remain given there is no output schema and no annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, except for 'Optionally include each area's top donors', which maps to include_top_donors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 specifies a clear action ('List'), a precise resource ('UNDP's focus areas / 'Our Focus' thematic pillars'), and the included metrics (budget, expenditure, project and donor counts). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like undp_list_regions or undp_list_sdgs by naming a unique resource and output content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list/search/aggregate tools. It also does not explain how optional parameters such as year, budget_source, or operating_unit affect results, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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