Philippine population statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds the data source (PSA OpenSTAT) and census year (2020), which provides useful context about data provenance and recency. However, it does not mention the openWorldHint implications or any rate limits/auth requirements, which would add further transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details (source and vintage). There is zero redundant language, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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 low tool complexity, comprehensive schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for selection. It conveys the essential data content and provenance. However, it could have benefited from mentioning that region filtering is available, but that is already in the schema, so the description adds sufficient value.

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 input schema covers both parameters fully (year and region) with descriptions, including that year is ignored. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not go beyond the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource as Philippine population data from PSA OpenSTAT, specifically the 2020 Census. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_poverty_stats or get_inflation_stats by domain. However, the description lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'get' to convey the action.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description (for population data), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_data_freshness or other statistical tools. No when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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