US Population Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context: data source (American Community Survey 5-year estimates), public domain, and annual update frequency. No contradictions.

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 with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, then source. Every sentence adds value.

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 (not shown but indicated) and annotations fully cover behavioral traits, the description is complete. It explains what data, coverage, source, and update cycle, which is sufficient for a simple query tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description mentions FIPS codes and the year but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (examples, constraints).

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 it retrieves population counts (total, male, female) for US geographies by FIPS code. It specifies coverage (states, counties, sub-county areas) and distinguishes from sibling tools like census.data.demographics which likely cover broader demographics.

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 indicates when to use (population data by FIPS code) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for population-specific queries.

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