Poverty Statistics Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the data source (SAIPE), temporal coverage (1989-present), and data types (counts, rates, income). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the metadata, though it omits details like rate limits or pagination.

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 purpose. It efficiently covers source, scope, data types, uniqueness, and availability. While the last two sentences could be combined, the overall structure is clear and concise without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned (poverty counts, rates, median income, age groups) and geographic granularity (states, counties). It also mentions the time range and uniqueness. The multiple parameters (5) are mostly explained via the schema, and the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. A perfect score would require a brief note on output format or pagination, but the current description is sufficient.

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 some variable names (e.g., SAEPOVALL_PT) and mentions age groups, but this largely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the score aligns with the baseline.

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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'poverty estimates and median household income from the SAIPE program', and the scope (single-year, states/counties, age groups, counts/rates/income). It also highlights its uniqueness as the only source for single-year county poverty estimates, distinguishing it from sibling tools like acs_data_tool or population_estimates_tool.

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 clear context for when to use (need poverty/income data from SAIPE) and emphasizes its unique coverage, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The mention of being the 'only source for single-year estimates of poverty for all U.S. counties' gives implicit guidance, but without exclusions the score is slightly below a top 5.

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