Returns the geographic spread of a name over time: where it originated, when it peaked nationally, which states adopted it and when, and how many states never adopted it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sex | No | Restrict to this sex (defaults to the name's most common sex) | |
| name | Yes | The baby name to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the output (geographic spread, state-level adoption), but it omits details such as time granularity, data structure, or potential limitations. This is adequate but not rich.
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, information-dense sentence that efficiently lists all key aspects (origin, peak, state adoption, never-adopted count). No filler or 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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and basic understanding. It lacks precise return format or time units, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.
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% (name and sex both have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the geographic spread of a name over time' and enumerates specific outputs (origin, national peak, state adoption, never-adopted count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_name_data or get_name_debuts, which likely serve different purposes.
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 implies a clear use case: any query requiring geographic/diaspora analysis of a name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused scope provides enough context for an agent to select this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
