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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the score's formula (cost-differential between permanent and contingent staffing), the five data sources (BLS, LinkedIn, Glassdoor, internal HRIS), the output fields (trend, confidence, top_drivers), and the daily update cadence. This enriches the agent's mental model of what the tool does and what to expect.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key return value and definition, followed by explicit usage triggers and update frequency. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool is a read-only indicator with no output schema, and the description sufficiently explains the return value (score, trend, confidence, top_drivers), its meaning, and when to call it. The optional parameter's behavior is fully specified in the schema. There are no hidden prerequisites or side effects left unexplained; the daily update note is a nice completeness touch.

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 single optional parameter 'days' has a thorough description in the schema (history series, up to 5 years, Gold tier requirement, fallback to snapshot). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, and it does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Returns' and a precise resource: a 0-100 labor-adjacent capacity score, along with the exact data sources and output components (trend, confidence, top_drivers). This clearly defines what the tool does and differentiates it from the many sibling tools, even though sibling descriptions are absent.

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 explicit call triggers: 'Call when the user asks about contractor availability, hire-vs-contract tradeoffs, or staffing costs, or when timing headcount expansion versus contingent staffing for upcoming quarterly demand.' This gives clear guidance on when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives (e.g., other adw indices), so it falls short of the top tier that requires when-not/alternatives.

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