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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by adding concrete behavioral context: data goes from 2008 onwards, latest figures are roughly 325,000–360,000 persons, the source is TEM via PxWeb, no API key is required, and the license is CC BY 4.0. This is valuable operational detail beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the core function, second adds temporal and value context, third gives source and licensing. Front-loaded with the purpose. No filler.

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 tool is a simple read-only data query with one optional parameter. Combined with the complete schema description flavors, the output schema presence, and annotations that cover safety, the description provides all needed context: what data, how far back, current magnitude, source, and access requirements. 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% since the only parameter 'months' has a complete description in the schema (range, default, availability). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is fine because the schema carries the full burden. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource (the number of unemployed jobseekers registered at Finnish TE-services), and clear scope (end of each month, whole country). It distinguishes from other unemployment tools by naming the Finnish context and the exact data source, so an agent can tell it apart from 'bls.macro.unemployment' or 'oecd.economy.unemployment' without opening the schema.

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 clearly frames the tool as national-level Finnish unemployment statistics, which implies its use case. It says 'for the whole country', excluding regional breakdowns. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states 'when not to use this tool', so it stops short of a full 5.

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