Get Neighborhood Demographics & Economics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: API key requirement, quota cost (1 call), the free test address exception, US-only location constraint, and the nullable 'neighborhood' field behavior. It does not specify the exact return format/nested structure, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 information-dense with no wasted sentences, front-loading the purpose and data returned. It packs many facts (scope, exclusions, key, quota, test address, null behavior) efficiently into about 90 words. Slightly long but every clause earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 multiple data categories returned, output schema presence, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers most important usage constraints. It documents exclusion (crime), scope (US), auth (API key), cost (quota), test address, and address/latlng exclusivity. It does not elaborate on the output structure, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error cases or what happens with invalid locations beyond the null neighborhood field.

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 schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds the 'Pass either address or lat+lng, not both' constraint, which is useful, but does not add format details beyond what the schema provides. The schema's param descriptions explain lat/lng/address adequately, so the description's marginal value is real but limited.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Profile of the neighborhood... demographics, median household income, home values, rent by bedroom count, education attainment, cost-of-living indices, climate and natural-disaster risk.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it does NOT return crime data and pointing to get_crime_data. The scope (US locations, one address/coordinate) is narrowly defined.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('when the question is about who lives in an area or what it costs to live there') and when NOT to ('Do NOT use it for crime or safety scores' with a named alternative get_crime_data). It documents the address-vs-latlng exclusivity constraint, US-only scope, API key requirement, quota consumption, and the free test address.

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