microdata_list_samples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that. It hints at the return content by saying 'find the correct sample ID' but omits details about pagination, response structure, or that results are time-series years. Some behavioral context is given, 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?

The description is highly concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide a usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, why you would use it, and the typical workflow (before creating an extract). Pagination is implied by the schema parameters. Minor gaps like not describing the exact response format are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters are already well-documented (collection enum, version, pagination). The description adds a bit of context by noting 'e.g. all ACS, CPS, or Census years' for the collection parameter, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 tool's function: 'List available samples for an IPUMS microdata collection' with concrete examples (ACS, CPS, Census years). The verb 'List' specifies the action, and 'samples' as the resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like microdata_list_extracts or microdata_search_variables.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to find the correct sample ID before creating an extract.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for most cases.

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