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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, yet the description adds genuinely new context: employment and openings are in thousands, and every result reports the projection vintage (base/target year), which matters for interpreting a 10-year forecast. It does not cover pagination or truncation beyond the schema's limit.

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?

Front-loads provenance and the field list, then the lookup/ranking modes, then units and vintage disclosure. Dense but purposeful, with only minor redundancy between the prose and the schema examples.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, listing every returned field, the units, and the vintage caveat. For a 6-parameter, all-optional read tool this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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% with descriptive enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description's SOC-code and title-word examples largely restate what the parameter descriptions already say. The unit note (thousands) is the only added semantic, so baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — official BLS employment projections by occupation — and enumerates exactly which fields come back (growth, openings, employment, wage, entry education). It also names the two access modes (SOC/title lookup vs. ranking), which separates it from siblings like bls_search and bls_get_series.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts and example questions ("projected growth for registered nurses", "fastest growing jobs") plus the two calling modes. It does not explicitly say when to prefer bls_get_series or bls_search instead, so the sibling boundary is implied rather than stated.

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