income_comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool merges 2017 income data with 2023 respondent data on folio, returns a markdown summary with weighted statistics, and explains the three metric options. This provides reasonable transparency though it omits potential side effects or permissions.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose sentence followed by bulleted parameter details. It is concise yet informative, though slightly verbose in listing examples that could be shortened.

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 tool's complexity and minimal schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and output format. It mentions matched respondents and weighted statistics, but does not elaborate on prerequisites or exact output columns, which may be covered by the output schema.

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%, so the description bears the load. It defines the three metric options (change, poverty, summary) with brief explanations and gives example filter and by expressions. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though the exact syntax for filter is not fully specified.

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 compares income between 2017 and 2023 for matched respondents, using a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on different analyses (e.g., compare_groups, transition_matrix).

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 explains what the tool does and the parameters but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as compare_groups or weighted_stats. No exclusion criteria or contextual comparison is provided.

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