Contested identity for one exact server_name: official_for, name_collision_count, and up to 10 other census server_name values sharing the same namespace brand or tail. Never invents lookalikes. Cost 1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server_name | Yes | Exact canonical Census server name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add value: it discloses the output shape, the maximum number of lookalikes, the guarantee that it does not invent lookalikes, and a cost of 1. It does not explain what happens when there is no contested identity or failure behavior, but the provided details are meaningful.
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. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds behavior and cost. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a useful picture of the return contents, the anti-hallucination guarantee, and the cost. It could be stronger by explaining 'contested identity' more explicitly or describing empty/no-contest cases, but it covers the essential invocation context.
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 already describes server_name as 'Exact canonical Census server name' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the exactness requirement and connects server_name to the output concept of official_for, but adds no format or syntax detail 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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning contested identity information for one exact server_name, including official_for, name_collision_count, and up to 10 lookalike values. It is clearly distinct from a generic lookup or search, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets' and uses domain jargon ('contested identity').
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?
It states the input is 'one exact server_name' and says it 'never invents lookalikes,' but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like census_lookup or census_search. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for exact lookup by name, the other for keyword search. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow the same 'census_<verb>' pattern ('lookup' and 'search'), which is predictable and consistent.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a focused census service covering lookup and search. However, it borders on feeling thin.
The tools cover the core operations (lookup and search), but lack additional features like listing all servers or retrieving detailed statistics, which are minor gaps.
