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 burden. It discloses the rolling 14-day window, the newest-first ordering, the count_in_window return field, and the row shape shared with search_layoff_notices. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or whether state is required, but the schema already marks state optional. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (rolling feed, 14-day window, ordering), then the routing instruction. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: time window, ordering, optional state filter, return shape, and the sibling to use for other cases. It doesn't describe the exact fields of a notice, but the row shape is referenced as identical to search_layoff_notices, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 adds context that limit controls the number of notices returned and state filters the feed, but it doesn't add details beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does clarify that limit is capped at 200 and default 25, which is already in the schema.

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 states the tool's function: a rolling feed of newly published WARN notices, sorted by notice_date descending, with optional state filtering. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_layoff_notices by noting the date window and lack of employer filter, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 says when to use this tool ('what layoffs were announced recently') and when to use the alternative ('for older dates or an employer filter use search_layoff_notices instead'). This is a clear when/when-not routing instruction.

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