employer_layoff_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time range (back to 1988), geographic scope (any covered state), fuzzy matching ('best-matching employer'), and the return structure (summary plus individual notices). This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it omits details like pagination or error handling.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key output elements. While it's a bit run-on, it has no fluff and every phrase adds value.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description provides a thorough overview of what the tool returns, including summary and detail. The limit parameter is covered in the schema, and the output format is sufficiently described. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds the 'best-matching' nuance for the company parameter, which goes beyond the schema's substring description. This is a helpful semantic addition.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving WARN notice history for a single employer, including summary statistics and individual notices. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on employer-level data rather than general notice searches or state totals.

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 implies use when you need a specific employer's layoff history, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. However, the context is clear enough that an agent can infer its purpose without confusion.

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