Search the framework

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-word matching that ignores word order, definition-level matching so differently-worded metrics still hit, and an explicit coverage boundary (no individual schools, colleges, or local labour market data; stops at district). This beyond-annotation context is exactly what prevents silent misuse.

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 with purpose and matching behavior, then coverage limits, then the argument semantics. Every sentence either defines capability, prevents a misuse, or documents the parameter; nothing is 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, matching semantics, coverage boundaries, defaults, and the sole parameter's meaning. An agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 description coverage is 0% and there is a single parameter, so the description must carry it — and it does, defining query as 'a concept' with concrete examples ('gifted', 'student debt', 'chronic absence') and stating that omitting it returns the 20 essential questions. This is far more than the bare schema provides.

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 and resource — browsing the Education-to-Workforce Framework and finding metrics by concept — and even explains the matching mechanism (metric/indicator names plus framework definitions). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like describe or get_data, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on how to invoke ('try a short multi-word phrase before assuming something isn't covered'), a recommended default ('omit query to list the 20 essential questions, which is the best starting point'), and a when-not-to-answer rule ('NOT COVERED... say so rather than answering from a different grain'). That is when/when-not/alternatives all in one place.

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