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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: data sources (BLS CES, openFDA MAUDE), update frequency ('Updates: daily'), and the composition of the return value. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but these are not critical given the read-only annotation.

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 yet information-dense: the first sentence states what is returned, the second tells when to call, and the last gives the update cadence. Every sentence earns its place 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields (regime, essentials_wage_yoy_pct, wage_subscore, device_event_surge_ratio, recent/prior report counts). It also provides usage context, update frequency, and the optional history parameter is fully explained in the schema. For a tool with zero required params, the description is 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?

The only parameter (days) has a complete schema description covering history behavior and Gold tier requirement, so schema coverage is 100%. The main description does not repeat or add parameter details, but the schema already handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns a 0-100 essentials-wage subscore and cross-signal regime') and names the resource (cross-signal of BLS CES wages and openFDA MAUDE device events). It enumerates exact output fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely cover other signals.

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 triggers: 'Call when the user asks about essential-worker wage pressure, medical-device safety trends, or staffing-stress risk, or when timing device rollouts, quality staffing, or med-tech risk reviews.' This gives clear context but does not mention when not to use the tool or name specific alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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