census_query

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns data for variables and geography, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, rate limits, or other runtime behaviors. With annotations doing most of the safety work, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds examples that are directly useful for invoking the tool. The two 'Common...' lines are well-structured and each carries information, though the phrase 'and more' is a minor vagueness that prevents a 5.

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 read-only query tool with rich schema descriptions and no output schema, the description supplies enough context through dataset examples, variable meanings, and geographic examples. It could be more complete by mentioning response shape or how to discover additional variables, but nothing essential to making a first correct call is missing.

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 meaningful value by mapping common variable codes to human-readable meanings (e.g., B19013_001E = median income) and by providing realistic dataset paths. This goes beyond the schema's minimal examples, warranting a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Query the U.S. Census Bureau Data API.' It also clarifies the output ('Returns data for specified variables and geography') and lists supported datasets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like census_population or census_search_variables, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by listing common datasets and variable examples, so an agent can infer this is the general-purpose Census data query tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, and it does not mention sibling tools that might be more appropriate for variable discovery or population-specific lookups.

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