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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true; the description adds useful context: monthly updates, history since 1975, and the specific output fields (stress_score, unemployment_rate, change_3mo). It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral detail about cadence and data coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the metric's definition and formula, followed by usage triggers and update frequency. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a read-only indicator with no output schema, the description covers return fields, score meaning, usage triggers, and update cadence. The only minor gap is that the optional `days` parameter behavior is left entirely to the schema, but since the schema handles it well, this is sufficient.

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 only parameter, `days`, is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its purpose, range, and Gold tier requirement. The tool description does not add any parameter-level information, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: returns a 0-100 US labor-market stress score, with a clear formula (BLS unemployment level vs 3.5% floor and 3-month trend) and names the output fields. This distinguishes it from other indicator tools by explaining its unique construction.

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?

Explicitly gives call scenarios: 'when the user asks about unemployment, jobless trends, layoffs, labor-market softening, or recession risk, or when timing macro-scenario shifts...' This is clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it slightly misses the top score.

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