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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds domain behavior: notices are 'the earliest public signal' filed roughly 60 days before layoffs, and it explains that states_covered helps distinguish a quiet month from a coverage gap. This is useful context an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core scope and timing, then gives usage examples and return fields. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundant restatement.

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?

For a read-only, open-world lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, timing, return fields (employer, site, worker count, effective date, states_covered), and coverage nuance. Annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents days, limit, and state with defaults and examples. The description mentions 'every covered state' and 'latest WARN filings in Texas' but adds no new parameter semantics 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 states a specific resource and scope: 'Most recent US WARN Act layoff and plant-closure notices across every covered state, newest first.' It is clearly a recent-layoff-lookup tool, distinct from siblings like warn_search or warn_company, and it even previews the return contents.

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 gives clear example query contexts ('recent layoff notices', 'who announced layoffs this month', 'latest WARN filings in Texas'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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