get_commute_flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns top flow pairs with job counts and a 3-supersector industry breakdown, and explicitly notes the coarser granularity and tract-level unavailability, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates on return content and limitations. It is efficient and every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description explains the return format (top flow pairs, job counts, industry breakdown), covers geographic and industry limitations, and clarifies what is not supported. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could mention pagination or sorting behavior.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description reinforces the meaning of area_type and direction but does not add substantial new syntax or detail beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline 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's function with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('commute flow data'), and immediately distinguishes itself by mentioning origin-destination pairs, inbound/outbound directions, and the coarse industry breakdown. It also contrasts with the 20-sector NAICS detail in single-area employment summaries, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 clear usage context by specifying geographic scope (county or state), direction options, and that tract level is not supported. It also gives a comparative note about the industry breakdown versus single-area employment summaries, which helps agents decide when to use this tool instead of related ones, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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