compare_demographics

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

Annotations already communicate the safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the output structure ('each ZIP's demographic profile plus summary comparison ranges') and naming specific categories (population, income, housing). This is meaningful behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action and constraints; the second describes the return value. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description's mention of the return structure ('demographic profile plus summary comparison ranges') is valuable. It also respects the input constraints and distinguishes from sibling tools. It could be more exhaustive (e.g., exact category filtering behavior, data_year defaults), but the combination of complete schema descriptions, annotations, and a clear summary makes it sufficiently complete for this read-only tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the ZIP code count constraint and gives examples of categories, but it does not add deeper meaning for data_year or the categories enum beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'population, income, housing' partially overlaps with the categories enum but doesn't fully document parameter behavior.

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 ('Compare demographics side by side') and clearly identifies the resource (ZIP codes) and scope (two to ten ZIP codes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_demographics or compare_employment by focusing on side-by-side demographic comparison across multiple ZIP codes.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a side-by-side comparison of demographics across 2–10 ZIP codes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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