Detailed voting and political data for one ZIP code. Use when get_zip_profile's voting section isn't sufficient depth. Includes presidential election results, partisan lean, congressional and state legislative districts, and state officials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so the description carries full burden. It lists the types of data returned (presidential election results, partisan lean, districts, officials) but does not mention side effects or authorization requirements. Since the tool appears to be read-only, this is adequate.
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, well-structured paragraph with three sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes only necessary information, no redundancy.
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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers the data included. It could mention whether results are current or historical, but otherwise it is complete enough for an agent.
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 0%. The description only implies the 'zip' parameter is a ZIP code but provides no format, validation, or examples. It adds minimal additional meaning 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 specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'voting and political data for one ZIP code'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_zip_profile' by indicating this tool provides more depth on voting data.
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 states when to use this tool: 'Use when get_zip_profile's voting section isn't sufficient depth.' This provides a clear usage condition and hints at an alternative tool for lighter needs.
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.
