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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the single-EMTAK scope and the output metrics, but does not disclose behavior around the optional county filter (how it interacts with sector aggregation), the default year behavior (null meaning), or data coverage. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description adds modest but not rich context.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the core purpose and outputs, the second delivers the sibling routing. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description covers purpose and routing well, but it leaves the county parameter's role somewhat ambiguous given region_stats exists for counties — an agent may wonder when to supply county to sector_stats versus switching tools. Default-year behavior and aggregation scope are also undisclosed.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description confirms emtak is the primary sector filter but adds no meaning beyond the schema for the year or county parameters; it does not explain, for instance, what year=null means or how county filters the sector stats.

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 states a concrete resource (sector statistics for one EMTAK) and enumerates specific outputs (medians, percentiles, company counts), giving the agent a precise picture of what the tool returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming region_stats and compare_companies, so an agent can separate the tools without opening schemas.

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 second sentence gives explicit routing: use region_stats for county-level questions and compare_companies for named firms. This directly answers the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives question and leaves nothing to inference.

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