get_migration_trends

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by detailing the response format (array sorted by year pair), specific fields included, AGI unit scaling, and data source, which helps the agent understand expected output and behavior.

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 concise sentences, with the primary action stated first, followed by output details and units. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately conveys the return structure: an array of yearly summaries with key fields, sorted by year pair, and AGI units. It is sufficient for a read-only data retrieval tool, though it could be more explicit about edge cases or exact breakdown composition.

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 fully describes both parameters (level and fips) with high coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves migration summary data across all available year pairs for a county or state, specifying output fields and units. It is specific and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_migration_summary or get_migration_flows.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_migration_summary or get_migration_flows. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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