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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: monthly frequency, seasonally adjusted data, the specific metrics returned, the source catalogue number, and licensing. It does not detail the output shape, but an output schema is present.

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 compact: three sentences front-load the purpose, then add breakdowns and attribution. There is little wasted wording, though the source/license sentence could be considered optional for invocation purposes.

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, well-schemaed tool, the description gives enough context to select and call it: data source, frequency, metrics, units, and available breakdowns. It could improve by explicitly contrasting with sibling economic tools, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents all parameters and enums in detail. The description adds survey context and units, but largely mirrors the schema. Note: the measure parameter's schema description contains a slightly inconsistent default (string enum vs. combined default), but this is not introduced by the tool description.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Australian labour market statistics from the ABS Labour Force Survey'), and enumerates the available metrics, breakdowns, and geography. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like abs.economy.cpi, abs.economy.gdp, and abs.demographics.population.

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 clear context: monthly labour-force data with sex and geographic breakdowns, and the source survey. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident from the content.

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