get_employment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the WAC vs RAC data distinction, the workplace default, and the exact response content. No annotation contradiction exists, and the added behavioral detail exceeds what structured hints provide.

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 three sentences that front-load the purpose, then compactly list return contents and explain the critical perspective parameter. Every sentence adds necessary information with zero waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned data categories and explaining the default perspective mode. The combination of annotations and schema covers safety, geography, and year semantics, leaving only minor gaps around response structure and multi-year behavior.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description re-explains the perspective parameter much like the schema does, adding only the WAC/RAC acronyms, and adds no new meaning for year, geoid, or area_type beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence, 'Retrieve employment data for a single geographic area,' uses a specific verb and resource with explicit geographic scope. The return-value list (total jobs, NAICS industry mix, earnings distribution, age breakdown) makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from siblings like get_employment_trend or compare_employment.

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 never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. The 'single geographic area' phrasing and the workplace/residence perspective explanation imply the intended usage context, but there is no explicit guidance for choosing this over get_employment_trend or compare_employment.

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