Population of provinces and counties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds material context beyond them: the exact census vintage, the fact that a newer census exists but is not released, and the exact measures returned (total, urban, rural, male, female, households). It does not discuss return format or coverage gaps per province, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the data vintage caveat, then the alternative-tool routing. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the measures returned and the temporal boundary of the data. It stops short of stating units, count of provinces/counties, or what a county-level record looks like, which would fully close the loop.

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% and the single parameter is already described, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless restates the mode switch — omitting province lists all provinces, supplying one lists its counties — which confirms the default behavior an agent needs in order to decide whether to pass the argument.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Get population and households'), names the unit of analysis (province, or county within one province), and pins the source ('Iran's 1395 census'). The agent can distinguish this from am_search/am_table data tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds the data to the latest published full census (Aban 1395 = 2016), warns that the 1405 census is unpublished, and routes projection/age-group needs to am_search ('پیش بینی جمعیت') and am_table. This is explicit when-to-use, when-not, and named alternatives.

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