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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing source composition, key requirements (Census key needed, BLS keyless), graceful degradation when a source fails, state-level vs metro-level scope, and the 'informational, not a guarantee' caveat. It also explains the composite banding logic. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral 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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: headline purpose, source methodology, output format, scope limitations, failure behavior, and disclaimer. The most important information is front-loaded, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 must explain what the caller can expect to receive. It does: a headline LOW/MODERATE/HIGH banding from a labor-weighted composite, per-dimension numbers and bandings, and graceful handling of source failures. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description mainly restates what the schema says about metro refining the Census context leg and labor/energy staying state-level; it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'One-call comparative cost of operating a business here read for a US state (with optional metro context).' It clearly identifies the tool's unique domain and distinguishes it from neighboring economic, census, and energy tools by specifying that it joins labor, energy, and local-context sources into a comparative index.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: a single-call comparative cost-of-business read for a US state, optionally refined by metro. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer a more specialized BLS/EIA/census tool, 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.