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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses data provenance (FRED/ALFRED), the revision-handling behavior ('revisions never pose as print-day numbers'), the surprise baseline selection logic (market-implied with a trend-model fallback), and the access cost/mechanism ('$0.02 via x402'). It omits error states, rate limits, and freshness/caching behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 the one-line summary, then a detail sentence, then the HTTP/price/docs footer. It is slightly repetitive ('Nonfarm payrolls (BLS, monthly): latest print...' restated as 'Latest Nonfarm payrolls print from the BLS...'), but every element is substantive and it is appropriately sized for its output richness.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the return payload itself — and it does, enumerating first-release vs latest value, revised flag, surprise vs labeled expectation, next release date, and a 12-observation mini-series, plus source, cost, and endpoint. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool 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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics and the description does not need to document inputs. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4; the description accurately implies a no-argument call.

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 concrete resource and source: 'Nonfarm payrolls (BLS, monthly)' with verb-like scope ('latest print, revisions, surprise'). It explicitly positions itself against its closest sibling by noting it is 'Same shape as /v1/econ/:series bound to payrolls', so an agent can tell it apart from the generic econ_series and the other econ_series_* bindings.

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?

The description makes clear what the tool is (the payrolls binding), which implicitly routes the agent, but it never states when to choose this over econ_series, econ_calendar, or econ_dashboard, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference from the content list.

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