List UNDP signature solutions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of six signature solutions with aggregate funding and project counts, which goes beyond the tool name and adds useful behavioral context. There are no unexpected side effects implied, and the scope of the output is clearly bounded to six items.

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, tightly worded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential return information: six signature solutions with aggregate funding and project counts. The optional parameter behavior is already covered by the schema. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, since the single parameter include_details already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents it. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('UNDP's six signature solutions'), and adds clarifying context by calling them 'the Strategic Plan delivery areas' and specifying the output includes aggregate funding and project counts. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tools, which target different entities like operating units, regions, SDGs, and focus areas.

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 it clear this tool is for listing signature solutions, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling list tools, such as focus areas or approaches. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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