census.zipcode

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions data categories without disclosing behavioral traits such as data freshness (5-year ACS), rate limits, or that it returns aggregate data. The agent receives minimal insight into what the tool does beyond a vague listing.

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?

A single, well-front-loaded sentence provides essential information without any wasted words. Perfectly concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on the output structure and data source timeframe (ACS 5-year). It lists categories but doesn't confirm if those are all returned fields, leaving some uncertainty.

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 description clarifies the 'zip' parameter is a ZIP code or ZCTA, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'type: string'. However, it does not specify format (5-digit vs 9-digit) or validate input constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides demographics from US Census ACS 5-year data for a ZIP code area, listing specific categories (population, income, housing, education). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like geo.postal (geographic info) and weather.zip (weather 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the single-parameter design and clear purpose make it self-explanatory for demographic queries. Lacks context on limitations or when not to use (e.g., for map data).

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