generate_ipums_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output contents (author list, DOI, link) and mentions where the version number appears, but does not clarify whether the template is static, if network access is required, or the exact return format. Partial behavioral disclosure, but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and provide essential details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate: it explains what the output contains and where to find the current version. It does not describe the return type, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this gap is minor.

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% with the 'collection' parameter already having a description and examples. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a formatted citation template for an IPUMS dataset, using a specific verb 'Return' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which all focus on data listing/extraction, not citation generation.

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 implies usage for generating citations and explains what is included (author list, DOI, link). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but since there are no alternative citation tools among siblings, the context is clear.

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