Get education by ZIP

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the population base (aged 25 and over), the exact metrics (bachelor's+ and graduate degree percentages), and the data source (ACS 5-year estimates). This is valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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 very concise and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the primary purpose in a compact format ('Educational attainment for a ZIP: % bachelor's+ and % graduate degree.'), and the second sentence adds essential details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the parameter format, the population denominator, the metrics, and the data source. There is no missing critical information that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 description explicitly explains the zip_code parameter: '`zip_code`: a 5-digit US ZIP.' This adds format validation (5-digit) and clarifies its role, which is crucial since the input schema only defines it as a string with no description. The schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is welcome.

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 what the tool does: 'Educational attainment for a ZIP: % bachelor's+ and % graduate degree.' It specifies the resource (ZIP) and the data returned (education percentages), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_income or get_demographics, but the focus on education is specific enough to separate it.

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 by context: it says 'Of the population aged 25 and over, returns the percent...' which suggests it is to be used when education data for a ZIP is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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