economics_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it is retrieval of metrics. It does warn against using tickers, which is a small addition. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and key usage. However, it redundantly lists available indicators that are already in the schema enum. Still, it is reasonably concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, complete schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers essential usage: what it does, required parameter, and a key restriction. It does not explain return values but output schema exists. It is sufficiently complete for an economics data retrieval tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by emphasizing that countries should include 'United States' as example and using comma-separated values, and prohibiting tickers. This clarifies usage beyond the schema property descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Labour and social metrics by country' and lists specific indicators (unemployment rate, labour productivity, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on labour and social metrics, while sibling tools cover environment, fixed income, etc.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: requires countries='United States', use comma-separated values, do not use tickers, and supports start_date/end_date and quarterly=true. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the domain differentiation is clear from sibling names.

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