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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the data source (WARN-Act), the aggregation (one row per ticker), the output fields, and the built-in limitation (only listed symbols). It adds the forward-looking insight about notices filed weeks before the cut, but does not explicitly state read-only semantics or pagination behavior.

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 description is concise and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded in caps. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, output format, usage context, caveat, and alternative reference. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description effectively summarizes the return values (one row per ticker with specific fields). It provides key context about data source, universe coverage, and ranking. It falls short only in not explaining all filter parameters, which are part of the input schema.

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% and the description only indirectly references the 'days' parameter via 'last N days'. It does not explain the 'state', 'limit', or 'min_employees' parameters, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone. Since the schema has no per-parameter descriptions, the description should have compensated for this gap but does not.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('listed companies' WARN-Act layoff notices). It distinguishes itself from the per-company sibling by explicitly pointing to '/workforce/layoffs/{ticker}' for single-company filings.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('call it for who is cutting right now') and explains the lead-time advantage. It also gives an explicit alternative for single-company filings and alerts the user to the intentional exclusion of private companies.

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