List SDGs with UNDP funding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies the read-only nature through the verb 'list', states what is returned (counts, budget, expenditure), and warns that target-level detail is intended for a single SDG. It does not discuss pagination, limits, or auth, but these are minor for a straightforward list operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and return content, then lists filtering options and the one special behavior worth calling out. Every sentence earns its place.

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 for this tool's complexity: it names what is returned, the available filters, and the target-level mode. Since there is no output schema, the stated return fields are important and present; parameter details are fully covered by the input schema.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description mostly restates the filtering parameters and the `include_targets` mode without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List the 17 Sustainable Development Goals' with UNDP project counts, budget and expenditure. It also distinguishes itself from target-level listing tools by explicitly reserving `include_targets` for target-level detail on a single SDG.

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 usage context: the tool lists aggregate SDG funding data and can be filtered by year, operating unit, and budget source. It also indicates when to enable `include_targets`, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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