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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-field information (total, male, female, median age) but omits behavioral caveats important for census data, such as ACS vintage or margin-of-error limitations.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the key capability and return fields are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and annotations that cover read-only semantics, the description does a good job of stating purpose and return fields. It leaves some gaps on data vintage and limitations, but the schema handles parameter-level detail adequately.

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 all eight parameters, including the level enum and required identifiers. The description lists geography types that map to the enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get total population for a US geography') and enumerates supported geography levels. It clearly describes what it returns (total, male, female, median age), but does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as census_demographics or census_business.

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 phrase 'Used for market sizing, location intelligence, demographic analysis' implies usage contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative to route between this and the other census_* siblings.

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