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

With readOnlyHint annotations already declaring the operation safe, the description adds valuable context: monthly update frequency, the higher-means-more-stress interpretation, and the deviation-based scaling methodology. It does not contradict annotations, and the update frequency in particular is important for agents to avoid over-reliance on real-time data.

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 compact (about 100 words) and front-loaded with the core return value, then gives methodology, output fields, usage triggers, and update frequency. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy.

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 snapshot output fields, interpretation, and data source, and the schema covers the optional history parameter. However, the exact structure of the history series (e.g., whether it returns just the score or all components over time) is not specified, leaving a minor ambiguity for agents requesting history.

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', has 100% schema description coverage explaining its purpose, limits, and tier requirement. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 clearly states the tool returns a US jobless-claims stress score with a 0-100 scale, identifies the data source (FRED ICSA) and methodology, and lists the output fields. This specificity distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, even without naming alternatives.

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 explicitly lists when to call the tool: user questions about initial jobless claims, unemployment filings, layoffs, labor-market health, or recession risk, plus timing of underwriting/hiring decisions. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the trigger list is clear and actionable.

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