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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: text is generated from stored figures with no model involvement, figures are verbatim as published with period, retrieval date and source attached, and coverage labels can differ from the reader's assumption (I-94 arrivals are U.S.-wide by residence, not Hawaiʻi arrivals). It also imposes a downstream obligation ('repeat each figure's notice', 'facts, not advice') that shapes how the result should be used. Return-shape detail is only implied, preventing a 5.

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 content is front-loaded with the resource and format, which is good, but the prose is dense and parenthetical, packing caveats, sourcing policy, coverage semantics, and usage obligations into long comma-chained sentences that are harder to scan than a short bulleted set of traits would be.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does: JSON, fixed sentences, per-figure period/retrieval date/source, a coverage line, and the 'next checks' section. For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, with only the concrete JSON structure left unstated.

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% and the single parameter already documents the Monday/YYYY-MM-DD format, Honolulu time, and latest-issue default; the description adds nothing about this parameter beyond repeating the default. Baseline 3 applies since 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?

Names a specific resource (the weekly pulse issue for one week) and a specific return format (JSON, fixed sentences), plus what it contains: new periods, revisions, first values, late/paused sources, next checks. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names the sibling tools (latest, series_history) that a similar request might land on, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 only usage rule stated is 'Default: the latest issue' for the date parameter, which merely restates the schema default. There is no guidance on when to choose this digest over series_history for a single series or latest for a single figure, so the agent must infer the boundary from the report's content list.

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