Get the most recent WARN Act layoff notices.
Args:
days: Look back this many days (default 30)
state: Optional state filter (2-letter code)
limit: Max results (default 25, max 100)
api_key: Optional API key for higher rate limits
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses parameter defaults, state format, limit constraints, and the role of api_key in raising rate limits, which is useful operational context. However, it does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention response ordering, error behavior, or any prerequisites beyond the optional API key.
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 description is concise and well-structured: a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a bullet-point argument list. Every sentence provides useful information without verbosity or redundancy, making it easy to scan and parse.
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?
The description is adequate for typical usage, covering all parameters, defaults, and constraints. However, it omits mention of response contents (though an output schema exists) and does not explicitly state the operation is read-only. It also lacks any pointer to sibling tools for alternative use cases, which would have made the context more complete.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must add meaning. It does so thoroughly: 'days' defines the lookback period with a default, 'state' specifies the format (2-letter code), 'limit' states max and default, and 'api_key' explains its purpose. All four parameters are clearly explained, significantly exceeding 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'the most recent WARN Act layoff notices,' which is a specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_company_layoffs (company-specific) and search_layoffs (broader search) by its focus on recent notices. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates well.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_layoffs or get_company_layoffs. While the phrase 'most recent' hints at a time-sensitive use case, there is no stated exclusion or comparison, leaving the agent to infer the intended usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools overlap in function: get_recent_layoffs, get_state_summary, and search_layoffs all return layoff notices with various filters. get_state_intelligence also overlaps with get_state_summary but adds cross-dataset information. Descriptions help, but an agent may struggle to choose the right tool without careful reading.
Most tools follow a get_verb pattern and use snake_case consistently. A few deviations like authenticate (verb-only), search_layoffs, and export_records are action-oriented but acceptable, making the overall pattern mostly predictable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a labor market intelligence API. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is neither sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
The tool set covers core workflows: authentication, search, bulk export, state-level intelligence, risk signals, and talent pipeline. Minor gaps exist, such as no company-level cross-dataset view (similar to state_intelligence for a company) and no direct record-by-ID retrieval, but these are workable.