Describe a metric or indicator

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: coverage is derived from the data, which disagrees with upstream metadata for 22 metrics. That caveat is real value beyond the annotations, but error handling and response shape for bad targets are unaddressed.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then the LINK PEOPLE TO THE SOURCE block, then arg documentation — well ordered and mostly tight. Minor padding in "it beats paraphrasing, and it is where the framework lives" and the all-caps emphasis costs a little economy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, this is complete: purpose, the coverage-accuracy caveat that affects trust in the answer, full target syntax, and guidance on relaying the source link. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no enums, the description carries the full burden and does: it documents the mNN / iN / eqN prefixes, the bare-number default (metric), and the two special targets "framework" and "disaggregates". An agent can construct a valid target without guessing.

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?

States a specific verb ("Explain") and a precise resource ("one Education-to-Workforce metric, indicator, or essential question") plus the returned scope (years, geographies, framework link). It implicitly separates itself from get_data by framing the answer as definition/evidence "rather than a number", though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a clear use condition — pass the framework link along when someone wants the definition, evidence or measurement guidance rather than a number — which implicitly routes numeric requests to get_data. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., unknown target behavior), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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