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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world behaviour, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioural context beyond them: each indicator shows latest reported value plus separately the latest non-projection ILO modelled estimate, without imputing missing reported values, and aggregates carry only modelled values. That is substantive disclosure of data-provenance semantics.

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 long sentences carry dense but relevant content, and the indicator inventory plus scope are front-loaded. The first sentence's indicator list is heavy but every element is load-bearing for a profile tool, so there is little waste.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the non-obvious behavioural points an agent needs: reported vs modelled values, missing-value handling, and aggregate-only modelling. It stops short of routing guidance among the seven sibling tools, which is the only material gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces ref_area semantics by naming ISO3 and X-coded aggregate forms with examples and noting that aggregates only have modelled values, but says nothing about the sex parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('Build a headline labour-market profile') and resource (one reference area), and enumerates the nine indicators returned, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It is clearly a bundled multi-indicator snapshot, which implicitly separates it from single-indicator query tools, but it never names a sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by scope: 'one reference area' with country or X-coded aggregate accepted, which tells the agent the input shape but not when to prefer this over ilostat_query_indicator or ilostat_compare_geographies. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not conditions and no named alternatives.

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