Get census tract demographics (ACS 5-Year)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description covers behavioral traits directly. It discloses the API key requirement, provides a sign-up link, and mentions the default field set when 'fields' is omitted. While it does not describe error handling or output format, these are minor for a simple retriever; the key prerequisite and default behavior are clearly stated.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides an essential prerequisite, a field list, and a usage note—all in three short sentences. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes value.

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 read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers the core functionality, required input, available fields, and default behavior. It does not explain return format or error cases, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described. The description adds little beyond the schema: it lists the available fields (matching the enum) and mentions the default set, but the schema already documents the default. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond structured data.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('demographic indicators for an 11-digit census tract GEOID'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on demographic data from the ACS 5-Year. The title and first sentence work together to convey exactly what is provided.

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 sets clear context: this tool returns demographic data for a tract GEOID. It also mentions a prerequisite (API key) and gives a link to obtain it. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over siblings like lookup_census_tract or check_opportunity_zone, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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