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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: data provenance (state labor departments), ordering (newest first), an explicit data limitation ("it does not say why"), and a licensing/attribution obligation (CC BY 4.0 with link back) that the agent must honor when citing.

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-loads the call condition and folds the trigger examples into a single sentence, then moves to filters, record contents, and caveats. It is slightly dense and repeats the "what you can ask" idea twice, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (employer, place, workers named, filing date, state record, NextChapter link), plus ordering and coverage limits. That is everything an agent needs to call it and to describe results accurately.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including limits and defaults is already documented. The description only restates the filter axes (employer, state, days back) and omits limit entirely, adding no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema — the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific resource (WARN Act layoff notices from U.S. state labor departments) and what it does (query/filter newest-first). It is clearly distinct from siblings like layoffs-adjacent benefits tools and unemployment_benefits_by_state, since it is about employer filings, not worker benefits.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with concrete user phrasings ("I was laid off", "is [company] laying people off?", "which employers filed notices in [state]"). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use, so routing against laid_off_benefits_and_programs or unemployment_benefits_by_state is left to inference.

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