list_census_datasets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that the tool is a read-only listing operation requiring a valid activity and topic, and hints at dependencies on prior calls. It does not disclose return format or error behavior, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable and richer than many similar tools.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a concise workflow directive in the second. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to obtain inputs. It could be more complete by explicitly describing the nature of the returned dataset list or contrasting with get_census_data, but it is not severely lacking.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, describing both parameters as IDs sourced from list_census_topics and list_census_events. The description reinforces the parameter semantics but adds no new information beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 lists available datasets for a specific census activity and topic, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing dataset listing and referencing prerequisite tools, which helps narrow its role.

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 explicit guidance to call list_census_events and list_census_topics first, establishing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for actual data retrieval via get_census_data), so it falls short of a 5 but offers strong contextual usage direction.

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