run_respondent_profile

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: data source (~1M respondents, 20-year span), return fields (sex, age, etc.), and parameter constraints. However, it omits information about authentication, rate limits, or behavior when no data matches.

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 succinct, with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by essential context and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, data source, return fields, parameters with examples, and constraints. The existence of an output schema further supports completeness, though the description already details return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (municipality, postcode, province, year_min, year_max) with meanings, examples (e.g., '1012'), and allowed ranges (2004-2023). This adds significant value beyond the basic schema.

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 retrieves demographic and mobility profiles of ODIN respondents for a location, using specific verbs like 'Get' and specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on respondent profiles with standardized data across 20 years.

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 provides parameter requirements (e.g., provide at least one location parameter) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_odin_profile. No when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings.

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