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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the result spans all covered states and is broken down by state and year, which tells the agent what a response contains. It stops short of noting pagination behavior beyond the limit param covered in the schema.

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 the resource and scope in the first clause, then use-case routing, then example queries. The three examples are useful but slightly redundant with the routing sentence; one or two would have sufficed.

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 compensates by describing the return content (all notices for the employer, per-state and per-year breakdown). Combined with the fully documented two-param schema and the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%: the company param documents free-text fuzzy matching against variants and limit documents the default and max. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the schema carries the load — the baseline 3 for full coverage is correct.

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 resource (every WARN Act layoff and closure notice for one employer), its coverage (all covered states), and the shape of the result (per-state/per-year breakdown). It also names its distinguishing scope versus the date-range siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from warn_recent without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly contrasts the two modes: 'trace one employer's layoff history rather than browsing a date range,' which routes the agent away from warn_recent. The three sample questions ('has Tesla filed layoff notices', worker counts, site closures) make the intended invocation pattern concrete.

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