Compare City Demographics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses return categories (population, income, poverty, education, housing, commuting) and coverage breadth (~30,000 places, ANY US city), but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on unrecognized city names.

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 purpose and scope before the return-field list. Efficient with minimal waste, though the trailing field enumeration is slightly listy.

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?

For a one-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, the breadth of supported cities, and what data comes back. It leaves minor gaps around input edge cases and constraint (2-6) enforcement, but is largely complete.

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 'cities' parameter already documents the 2-6 array with an example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is expected at this coverage level (baseline 3).

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 specific verb (Compare) and resource (demographic data) with a clear scope: multiple US cities side by side. The 'side by side' framing hints at how it differs from single-city siblings like query_demographics, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must still infer which tool to pick.

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 multi-city 'compare side by side' framing implies this is for comparing 2-6 cities, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., query_demographics for a single city). Usage is inferable from the phrasing rather than stated.

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