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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that advertised record counts are counts of advertisements, not unfilled positions or people needed, and that they are not deduplicated across employers. It also discloses that the tool deliberately avoids combining metrics into a shortage claim, providing critical context for interpreting outputs.

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 sentences, each adding critical information: what is reported, what is not claimed, and how to interpret counts. No filler or redundancy; the description is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope and data caveats well for a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. It could add more detail on the 'training-route constraint indicator' or the response structure, but it remains highly serviceable and complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has a single parameter 'limit' with a complete description ('Maximum rows per view; default 50'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, meeting the baseline 3 for high 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and lists four distinct output components (occupational demand, credential demand, training availability, training-route constraint indicator). It distinguishes itself by emphasizing 'separately' and explicitly stating it does not combine them into a shortage claim, clearly separating it from sibling tools that might conflate demand metrics.

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 description provides an explicit when-not: it is not suitable for making shortage claims because that requires a credential-holder denominator OEX lacks. However, it does not name alternative tools or give positive use cases, so it stops just short of full alternative guidance.

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