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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it merges GWIX job-ad and pay data with official statistics (BLS, Census, ONS), guarantees a citation per figure, and warns that free Ask GWIX answers are consumed first with credits shown afterward — a cost/consumption behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core scope and the alternative-tool routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is exactly where an agent needs them. The third and fourth sentences are long and somewhat self-promotional ('GWIX's own analyst', enumerating report sections), but they still carry facts about sourcing, citations and credit usage 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully sketches what comes back: percentiles, trends, comparisons, chart data, interpretation and per-figure citations. The one remaining ambiguity is how much the report depends on required vs optional params, but for a four-parameter, fully documented read-only tool this is close to 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the place/country/occupation_code interaction rules. The description only loosely restates that it 'answers a question' and that occupation codes matter when the question names a job; it adds no format or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('report on the state of the labor market') plus the supported scopes (city, metro, state, country) and the topics it covers (hiring conditions, wage pressure, growing occupations). It also explicitly names the sibling tools to use for a single job, so an agent can separate it from salary_and_hiring_report and hiring_demand_report without reading 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?

Clear routing rule: broad labor-market questions go here, single-job questions go to salary_and_hiring_report or hiring_demand_report. It does not address the other plausible alternatives in the sibling list, such as ask_gwix, company_hiring_report or talent_supply_report, so the exclusions are helpful but incomplete.

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