List SDG targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing basic behavior. It communicates that this is a read-style list operation and that results carry UNDP funding data, but it does not mention pagination behavior, limits, output shape, or any side effects beyond 'list'.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core resource and granularity is front-loaded, and the filter options are stated directly in the second sentence.

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?

Adequate for a simple list tool, but gaps remain: no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of limit, offset, or include_top_donors behavior. An agent could still call it correctly with the filter parameters, but pagination and optionality are left under-specified.

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%, with limit and offset undocumented. The description reinforces the meaning of the target parameter by showing sub-goal examples and adds the funding context, but it does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters or explain how filters combine.

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 action ('List') and resource ('SDG target-level data') and clarifies granularity with the parenthetical sub-goal examples ('1.1, 1.2 …'). It also names the associated data ('UNDP funding'), which distinguishes it from the sibling undp_list_sdgs 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 makes clear it is used for listing target-level SDG data and filtering by SDG code, target id and year. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternative sibling tools or provide exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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