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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses that titles are standardized classifications rather than verbatim printed titles, explains why, clarifies the count semantics (0.4 and full-time both count as one row), and notes that grade only appears when printed. These are exactly the behavioral traps an agent needs to know.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and each later sentence adds a distinct, high-value caveat. The all-caps emphasis is used sparingly on the two most important semantic warnings.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the metric, classification behavior, and data limitations. It does not explicitly state the return format or what happens when both parameters are omitted, but the grouped-count language covers the main invocation need.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value by mapping kind of job to the category field and explaining that category values are classifications, not original titles. This prevents passing a raw historical title like Sped Para.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: counts the people printed on a school staff roster, and specifies the grouping dimensions (year, school, kind of job). The emphasis that it is a count of names, not a staffing level, further prevents the most common misinterpretation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly warns that it carries no FTE and no funding source, so an agent knows not to use it for staffing-level or funding questions. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling like budget_history for those needs.

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