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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the 60-day advance-notice nature of the filings and the coverage constraint that results are limited to states listed in states_covered on every response.

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-loaded with purpose and return fields before the example queries, and no sentence is redundant. It is somewhat dense in one block, but each clause (definition, returns, examples, coverage caveat) carries information an agent needs.

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 correctly compensates by listing the fields returned, and it discloses the states_covered limitation. The only gap is result-volume behavior (pagination/default result count) beyond what the limit parameter documents, which is minor.

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 every parameter (limit, since, state, company, min_employees) is already documented with type and format. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (US WARN Act layoff and plant-closure notices filed with state labor departments), and defines what a WARN notice is. It enumerates the returned fields (employer, city/county, notice date, effective date, worker count, layoff vs closure), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields.

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?

Concrete example questions ('which employers filed layoff notices in Texas this year', 'WARN notices in Suffolk County') give clear context for when to reach for this tool. However, it never routes the agent among the close siblings warn_company, warn_recent, and warn_coverage, so the when-not/alternative half of the guidance is missing.

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