microdata_download_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions SHA-256 checksum verification and returning local file paths and verification status, which are key runtime behaviors. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like directory creation or file overwriting, though these are partially covered in the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word contributes. It is concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters with 3 required and no output schema, the description provides the core outcome and a mention of verification, but lacks guidance on prerequisites like needing a completed extract and the exact structure of the returned verification status. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only generically refers to 'local directory' and 'extract files' which map to outputDir and fileTypes but add no new semantic detail.

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 downloads completed IPUMS microdata extract files to a local directory. The verb 'download' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like microdata_get_extract or microdata_list_extracts by focusing on file download.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use when extract is complete' beyond the word 'completed' and does not contrast with other extract tools, leaving usage context implied at best.

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