Search UNDP projects

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 discloses that results are paginated, that the tool returns a compact record per project, and that the query parameter searches across ALL matching projects (not just one page) and costs extra requests on a cold cache. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core function and filters, the second describes the return format and pagination, and the third routes to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the return format, pagination, and the key alternative tool. It doesn't explain the meaning of each filter code (e.g., what a signature solution code looks like), but the schema descriptions cover those. The main gap is that it doesn't mention how to discover valid filter values (e.g., using undp_list_* tools), but the sibling names make that inferable.

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 93%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds value by summarizing the filter dimensions and clarifying the return shape (compact record with title, budget, expenditure, SDGs, donors). It also adds behavioral context for the query parameter (searches every project, costs extra requests) that goes beyond the schema. The description doesn't need to repeat each parameter since the schema is rich.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('UNDP projects'), and the key filtering dimensions (year, country, SDG, focus area, signature solution, budget source, policy marker). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from undp_get_project by noting it returns a compact record per project while the sibling provides full detail. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 says to use undp_get_project for full detail of one project, providing a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. It also explains pagination behavior ('follow next_offset for more'), which guides the agent on how to use the tool correctly. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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