find_geographies_coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the breadth of the returned geography layers, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for out-of-range or non-US coordinates, or whether layer/vintage choices affect results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core lookup action and followed by the payload summary. The long enumeration of layers is slightly bulky but earns its place as a substitute for a missing output schema.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description sensibly summarizes the return payload. It is close to complete, missing only edge-case behavior (invalid coordinates, non-US locations) and any guidance on the optional layers/vintage/benchmark parameters.

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 latitude, longitude, layers, vintage, and benchmark are already documented in the schema with formats and defaults. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up Census geographies') and names the exact input ('a given longitude/latitude coordinate pair'). This implicitly separates it from the address-based siblings (find_geographies_oneline, find_geographies_parsed, find_geographies_pr), which take addresses rather than raw coordinates.

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 coordinate input implies the use case, but the description never states when to choose this over find_geographies_oneline or find_geographies_parsed, nor any prerequisite such as US-only coverage. Usage is left to inference from the parameter list.

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