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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantial behavior on top: results are limited to programs verified against their official page, programs restricted to a group or profession are deliberately excluded, and each record carries amount, eligibility, status, official link and last-checked date. That is exactly the kind of verification-provenance and exclusion logic an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and example queries, then the return shape, then filtering guidance — a sensible order. It runs long for a single paragraph and mildly repeats the goal categories already listed in the enum (retraining, relocation), but no sentence is truly dead weight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly takes on return-value explanation, specifying the fields per program and the state-plus-nationwide ordering. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum values are already documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only a thin gloss — "Filter by goal to ask for retraining or relocation funding" — and says nothing extra about state or limit behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete trigger and verb ("Call this when someone who lost a job asks what help, money or programs exist") and enumerates the resource categories: health coverage, relocation money, retraining, tax credits, free courses. That is well beyond a restatement of the name. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling unemployment_benefits_by_state, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool's "benefits" framing.

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?

Usage is clear and illustrated with three realistic user phrasings ("what benefits can I get after a layoff", "is there money to retrain", "help to relocate for work"), and it explains the goal filter as the way to narrow scope. The gap is the absence of any exclusion or alternative routing — nothing says when to prefer unemployment_benefits_by_state or recent_layoff_notices instead.

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