microdata_search_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the source (scraped from usa.ipums.org), the 827-variable scope, and notes that sample IDs are representative (not exhaustive). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a search tool makes that implicit. The 'scraped' caveat adds useful transparency about data freshness.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return fields, then usage guidance, and a final data-source caveat. No redundant filler; every sentence adds value. It is compact yet complete.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and usage context. It does not explicitly mention partial-match behavior for the query parameter, which is implied by 'search' but could be clearer. Given the 5 parameters and no output schema, it is mostly complete but leaves a tiny gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—it does explain the 'sample' field in output and cross-references microdata_list_samples, which indirectly clarifies the sample parameter, but does not dive into syntax or edge cases. Thus 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 searches IPUMS USA harmonized variable mnemonics by name or label and returns specific fields (label, record type, thematic group, sample IDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like microdata_list_samples by focusing on variable discovery and explicitly cross-referencing that sibling.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to discover variable names before building an extract' and advises cross-referencing with microdata_list_samples for sample IDs. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and points to an alternative, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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