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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only availability check, specifies return contents (worker counts per service), and gives required input formats. It does not disclose potential edge cases like zero counts, but this is adequate for a simple check tool.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage context, then parameter guidance. Each sentence earns its place.

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 covers purpose, output (worker counts), required parameter format, optional parameter behavior, and target geography. Without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor omissions like behavior when no workers exist are not critical for this simple check.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage and documents the state and city parameters with examples and instructions to omit city for state-wide availability. The description largely repeats this information, adding little beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('the 30 service categories'), scope ('US state or city'), and output ('worker counts per service'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_local_workers by stating it is 'useful before searching' and answers availability questions.

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 explicitly states when to use it: before searching or to answer 'can I get X done in Y?'. It provides clear context but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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