TIGERweb Boundary Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns GeoJSON FeatureCollection and requires no API key, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as input validation behavior or rate limits.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, flexible usage) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and output format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection), but could provide more context on parameter relationships.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with 8 parameters; the description adds no substantive parameter details beyond the schema, such as how to use geoid vs. the hierarchical parameters or the meaning of simplify.

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 boundary polygons as GeoJSON, enumerates the types (states, counties, tracts, block groups, places), and indicates use for mapping and spatial analysis, differentiating it from sibling statistical tools.

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 'No API key required' as a convenience, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like geocoding or data tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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