search_layoff_notices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does disclose the return shape ('matched notice count, total workers affected, and the newest matching notices') and a performance behavior. It does not mention sorting or pagination details, but for a read-only search tool these gaps are minor.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The scope and filter dimensions are front-loaded, the return summary is compact, and the state performance tip is placed last without bloating the description.

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?

There is no output schema, so explaining the return values is necessary and the description does so. It provides scope, filter dimensions, result summary, and a performance caveat. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not describe the ordering of 'newest matching notices' or how results behave when no filters are supplied, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 value by grouping parameters into search dimensions ('employer name, state, date range and minimum headcount') and by adding a performance-relevant semantic for `state` that the schema does not convey. This lifts it above the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('US WARN Act mass-layoff notices'), and scope ('48 states, 1988 to today'), with filter dimensions. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like latest_layoff_notices or state_layoff_totals, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 a concrete usage tip ('Pass a state to make the search much faster'), but it never says when to prefer this tool over its siblings or when to avoid it. The intended context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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