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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds impactful behavioral details: units in thousands, 3/6/12-month windows, exact summation of sector contributions, separation of percentages into 'standing', and behavior of 'measures' and 'history' flags. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds technical value, explaining contents, return structure, units, and filtering. It is front-loaded with the resource scope, though the single run-on paragraph could be structured with clearer separation between output behavior and parameter behavior.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values. It covers units, time windows, the 'standing' field for percentages, the exact-sum property, and parameter effects. The 'answers on every tier' note covers access context. 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter behavior ('measures' filters by key, 'history' adds series) without adding new meaning beyond the schema, though it provides a few example keys and ties output fields to parameters.

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 uses a specific resource focus ('Every US employment measure') and enumerates the exact contents, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inflation or get_earnings. It is immediately obvious this is the go-to tool for US employment and jobs data.

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?

Clear context is provided about what data is returned, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping 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.