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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the HHI methodology, numeric score range 0-100, band scale from diffuse to dominant, and inclusion of top-N metros with job-count share. No contradictions found.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: definition, return payload, and use case. The key analytic content is front-loaded and every sentence adds information without 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently documents the input purpose, the output fields, and the interpretation ('diffuse → dominant'). No critical missing context is apparent.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It links 'for a skill' to the required skill parameter and 'top N metros' to the top_n parameter, adding meaning that the bare schema properties lack. It does not restate default/min/max, but those are already in the schema.

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 names a specific analysis ('HHI-based geographic concentration'), identifies the resource (a skill), and enumerates concrete outputs (hhi_score, band, top N metros with job-count share). It also frames the purpose with a direct question ('where does the candidate pool live?'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling jobs_* tools like jobs_scarcity or jobs_momentum.

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 gives a clear use case via the question 'where does the candidate pool live?' and indicates the tool is for geographic concentration of a skill. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, 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.