Geographic Information Tool

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds specific data types returned (land area, water area, etc.) and specifies the API source, providing value beyond annotations. No contradictory statements.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and data types. Each sentence adds value without fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, data outputs, and use cases. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure). It also does not explicitly mention parameter dependencies (e.g., state required for county) though the schema covers this. Overall, it is mostly complete but slightly lacking in return format details.

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 the baseline is 3. The description lists common variable examples but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No new insights on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 retrieves geographic metadata from the Census Bureau Geographic Information API, listing specific data types (land area, water area, centroid coordinates, FIPS codes) and use cases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide survey data or geocoding services.

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 mentions usefulness for 'geographic reference data, area calculations, and mapping coordinates' but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like geocoding_tool or tigerweb_tool, nor provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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