Lists every field name, type, and description available for search criteria. Call this when you're unsure what field names to pass to search_zips, or when the user asks what data ZipExplore has.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the read-only behavior (listing fields) and the context (schema for search criteria). While it doesn't explicitly state side effects or authentication needs, the behavior is inherently non-destructive and straightforward.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The sibling tools list confirms it is a metadata tool distinct from data-retrieval tools.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (none needed). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters 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 clearly states the tool 'lists every field name, type, and description available for search criteria.' It uses a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('field names, types, descriptions'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_zips' by being a metadata discovery tool.
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?
Explicitly says: 'Call this when you're unsure what field names to pass to search_zips, or when the user asks what data ZipExplore has.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool and implies when not to (when you need actual data, use search_zips).
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Domain-specific profiles (e.g., get_air_quality_profile) are explicitly for deeper dives after get_zip_profile, while search, reverse geocode, research, and methodology tools each serve unique roles with no overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_<domain>_profile, search_zips, reverse_geocode, compare_zips, get_research, get_methodology, etc. The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
22 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool addresses a specific need (12 domain profiles, search, geocoding, articles, methodology, ping). The count is appropriate for the breadth of data offered.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover (search_zips, get_search_fields), retrieve (get_zip_profile, domain profiles), compare (compare_zips), and ancillary (reverse_geocode, get_research, get_methodology). There are no dead ends or obvious gaps.
