find_geographies_oneline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the class of geography returned but says nothing about output shape, US-only scope, match-accuracy/no-match behavior, or rate limits. Additionally, 'Requires a benchmark and vintage' conflicts with the schema, where both are optional fields with defaults (Current_Current, Public_AR_Current), which could push an agent to supply parameters unnecessarily.

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 front-loaded sentences: the core action first, prerequisites second. The long parenthetical layer list is informative rather than filler, though it is heavier than strictly necessary.

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 and no annotations, the description should carry more of the return-value and caveat load. It communicates the domain of results (Census geographies) adequately but omits output structure, geographic coverage limits, and failure behavior for a geocode-plus-enrichment call.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including the layers enumeration and defaults). The description only echoes the layers concept and the benchmark/vintage mention, adding essentially no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: geocodes a one-line address AND returns the associated Census geographies, with an explicit enumeration of what geographies (States, Counties, Tracts, Blocks, CDs, etc.). The 'one-line address' phrasing distinguishes it from find_geographies_parsed and geocode_pr_address without needing to open either schema.

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 'one-line address' framing implies when this variant applies versus the parsed/PR siblings, and it flags that a benchmark and vintage are involved. However, it names no alternative explicitly and gives no guidance on when to choose find_geographies_oneline over geocode_oneline_address or find_geographies_coordinates.

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