Build DOL LCA Employer Profile

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions output components but does not disclose that the tool aggregates data, is read-only, requires no special auth, or any rate limits. The fact that it 'builds a profile' suggests multiple queries, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

A single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The list of output components is concise but could be slightly more structured. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how the profile is returned (e.g., aggregated statistics vs. rows), pagination, or any constraints. For a tool with many filters, more contextual detail is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond listing output fields; parameters are already fully described in the schema. There is no mapping of parameters to the output components mentioned.

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 builds an 'employer profile' with specific aggregated data (certification counts, wage statistics, top job titles, SOC codes, worksites, flags), distinguishing it from sibling search tools that return individual records.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lca_search' for individual records or 'foreign_labor_search' for broader data. The description implies it is for aggregated profiling, but does not say when not to use it or list alternatives.

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