microdata_get_extract

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that download links appear only when the extract is complete, but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential error conditions, or what shape the response takes beyond 'status and details'.

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 a single well-formed sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and a key behavioral detail. There is no redundant information or unnecessary length.

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 straightforward retrieval tool with only three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and an important conditional behavior (download links when complete). It could go further by mentioning status values or linking to siblings, but it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, and all parameters (version, collection, extractNumber) already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 tool gets the status and details of a specific IPUMS microdata extract by number, and mentions download links when complete. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like microdata_list_extracts (which lists extracts) and microdata_download_extract (which downloads).

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 checking the status/details of a specific extract, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over microdata_wait_for_extract or microdata_download_extract. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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