get_migration_summary

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

The annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the sign convention for net returns (positive vs. negative), the proxy meaning of net exemptions, the unit for AGI (thousands of dollars), and the source (IRS Statistics of Income). This goes beyond the structured annotations and aids interpretation.

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-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence and then providing necessary interpretive details (metrics, sign, year format, source). Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 read-only summary tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned, the sign conventions, the year format, and the data source. It does not mention edge cases like missing data or pagination, but given the simple nature of a summary lookup and strong annotations, this is not a significant gap. Sibling differentiation is the only notable omission.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic detail, particularly for the 'year' parameter, explaining that it is a year pair representing tax filing year transitions (e.g., '2021-2022'). This is not present in the schema description and helps the agent format the parameter correctly.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve migration summary') with a defined scope ('for a county or state') and explicitly lists the returned metrics ('inflows, outflows, net migration', 'net returns', 'net exemptions', 'net AGI'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_migration_flows or get_migration_trends by focusing on the summary/aggregate nature.

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 context for when to use the tool (when a summary of migration at county/state level is needed) and explains the year-pair format. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_migration_flows for detailed flow breakdowns' or 'use get_migration_trends for multi-year trends', leaving the agent to infer differentiation from the word 'summary' and sibling names.

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