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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds limited behavioral context beyond that, mostly restating topic areas rather than disclosing output shape, limitations, or data-source nuances.

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 concise sentences front-load the tool's substance with a list of returned data categories, then add use-case context. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of the tool name.

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 rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when' well. It also lists the return subjects since there is no output schema. Minor gaps remain around output format or precise metric definitions, but they do not prevent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 enumerates the specific data topics (labor force, unemployment, commute times, public transit usage, work-from-home rates) and the geographic scope (US geography), which distinguishes it from sibling census_* tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 gives clear use contexts: site selection, workforce analysis, and commercial real estate. This helps an agent decide when this tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative census tool or call out exclusions.

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