latest_layoff_notices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal non-obvious behavior: notices from the last ~14 days as agencies posted them, newest-first ordering, and optional single-state filtering. It does not address edge cases like invalid state codes or pagination, but for a read-only feed the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core concept front-loaded and the use case stated directly. There is no filler, and it does not redundantly restate what the schema already covers.

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 feed tool with two optional parameters, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema, but the return shape is implied by 'WARN notices' and the feed framing; a pointer to search_layoff_notices for older data would make it slightly more complete.

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 schema already documents both limit and state parameter meanings. The description adds only that the state filter is optional and that the feed is time-bound, which is useful but not a substantial extension beyond the schema. 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 names a concrete resource ('rolling feed of newly published WARN notices') and a precise use case ('what layoffs were announced recently'), with temporal scope and ordering. It does not explicitly name sibling search_layoff_notices, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for "what layoffs were announced recently".' It also clarifies the time window and optional state filter. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as search_layoff_notices for historical queries.

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