Create Full Peer Cohort (Rich)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses multi-source API calls, the slower runtime, and the ~50-city candidate pool. It does not address latency magnitude, failure behavior if a source is unavailable, or that this is a read-only operation, but the key cost/scope traits are surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and cost tradeoff, then structured into dimension list and criteria options. Slightly long, but every line (sources, dimensions, enum meanings) carries decision-relevant content rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the 12 dimensions being compared and the criteria weighting semantics, so the agent knows what it gets back conceptually. Remaining gaps are return shape details (e.g., scoring/ranking format) which are minor for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's terse 'What dimensions to weight most' by explaining what each of the six criteria enum values actually prioritizes. That is genuine added meaning for the one parameter an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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+resource ('Find peer cities') and immediately scopes it to the union of four named data sources, listing the 12 comparison dimensions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_census_cohort, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the tradeoff that selects it: 'Richer but slower than create_census_cohort (~50 cities pool)' plus 'Use this for comprehensive benchmarking.' That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that signal.

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