Query City Demographics

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose valuable behavioral context: the data sources per country, the ~30,000-place US coverage, and the auto-detection logic. It says nothing about return shape, data freshness/vintage, or failure behavior for unmatched cities.

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 purpose, then cleanly organized as per-country data inventories, with invocation rules last. Slight redundancy with the schema's country description costs it the top score, but every line is informative.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must stand alone, and it does cover scope, data categories, and input ambiguity. The remaining gap is the return format/structure, which an agent would want before calling.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the enum and the ambiguity rule, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's auto-detection and ambiguous-city guidance rather than adding new semantics (no formats, no canonical city-name guidance beyond what the schema shows).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Query demographic data for a city') and enumerates the dataset each country taps (Census ACS, ONS/Nomis, StatCan), which tells an agent exactly what it will get. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling compare_demographics or query_city_data, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful invocation guidance — country is auto-detected, and must be supplied for ambiguous cities — but never says when to pick this tool over compare_demographics (multi-city comparison) or query_city_data. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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