get_census_place

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields, FIPS length rules, and public-domain source, which conveys a read-only nature. It does not cover invalid-input behavior or rate limits, but for a simple lookup the transparency is adequate.

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 sentences: purpose, param explanation, and source. Every sentence provides necessary information, front-loaded with the tool's core function, and no fluff.

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 output schema exists and the tool is a simple single-place lookup, the description covers purpose, return contents, parameter semantics, and data source. No significant missing context for this scope.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'level' is the geography level and 'fips' is the FIPS code, with specific length mappings (state=2, county=5, place=7, tract=11). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 gets detailed geographic information for a single US Census place, enumerating specific return fields (name, parent place, population, area, coordinates, child levels). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_census_places and get_census_place_metrics.

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 for a known single place by FIPS code, and the focus on 'geographic information' separates it from metric-focused siblings. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives such as explore_census_geographies or search_census_places.

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