get_us_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the US-origin series lags the Mexican series by a quarter or two. It does not mention data availability, whether the tool returns both series, or any limitations. The lag disclosure is valuable but incomplete for a data-retrieval tool.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The core data scope is front-loaded, and the lag note is a useful addition. It earns a 4 because it is concise and informative, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps: it doesn't state whether the tool returns data for all states at once, whether the population is a separate field, or how the lag affects the requested period. The sibling tools suggest a family of related data tools, so a bit more context on the US-state scope would help.

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 50%: 'year' is described as 'Calendar year, e.g. 2024', but 'quarter' has no description beyond its enum. The description adds context about the data (remittances and population) but does not explain how the parameters interact, e.g., whether quarter is optional and what happens if omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers half the parameters and the description adds some context.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('remittances sent from each US state for one period, with the Mexican-born population of that state'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_mexico_states and get_national_totals by specifying US-state-level data. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it misses the top score.

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 context: it is for US-state-level remittance data with a lag note about the US-origin series. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_mexico_states or get_national_totals, nor does it mention exclusions. The lag note is useful but not a full usage guideline.

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