microdata_create_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ('Returns the new extract number and initial status') and hints at the next step, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, asynchronous processing, or other behaviors that might be expected for a create operation.

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-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes value (what it does, what it returns, and the next recommended step). There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and mentions a relevant follow-up tool. It does not explicitly mention asynchronous processing or how to track the extract, but it is reasonably complete for a create operation with related sibling tools available.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents all parameters. The description text only lists a subset of parameters (collection, samples, variables, output format) without adding deeper semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 action ('Submit a new IPUMS microdata extract request') and the resource ('IPUMS microdata extract'), with a specific verb and scope. It also lists key inputs and the return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nhgis_create_extract by specifying 'IPUMS microdata'.

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 on when to use the tool: to submit a new extract request. It also gives follow-up guidance ('Once submitted, use microdata_extract_to_code...'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like nhgis_create_extract, though the tool name and IPUMS qualifier imply that distinction.

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