Search UNDP donors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that the index is large, that a query is mandatory, and that it returns the donor id used as budget_source. However, it does not describe the response shape, pagination behavior, empty-result handling, or what happens when no match is found.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's purpose, then gives the key usage constraint and the most important return-value fact. 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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the required query, explains why it is needed, and states the crucial return value (donor id used as budget_source). The main omission is a description of the output format, but enough is provided for correct invocation.

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?

The schema documents query and country but leaves limit and offset undocumented. The description adds meaning by explaining why query is required and that it matches on donor name or id, but it does not compensate for the missing limit/offset semantics. Overall coverage is approximately 50%, so the description only partially adds value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names a precise resource: 'the index of organisations that fund UNDP (governments, multilaterals, foundations, private sector)'. It also states search keys (name or id), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools that search projects or list operating units and regions.

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 explicitly notes that a query is required and explains why: the full index is too large to list. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but no sibling appears to be a direct donor-search alternative.

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