get_employment_trend

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: returns an array ordered ascendingly by year, lists specific metrics, and clarifies the perspective parameter's default. This goes beyond the annotation-only baseline.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then concise detail on output structure and parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only trend tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what data is returned (array of yearly metrics with specific fields) and ordering. It also explains the perspective parameter. The tool's scope is clear, making it complete for agent selection.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds little beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing the perspective default and 'single area' scope, which is already implied by 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 description clearly states the tool retrieves employment data across all available years for a single area, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_employment and compare_employment by emphasizing the time-series aspect and single-area scope.

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 conveys when to use this tool (for yearly trends of one area) and implies it is not for multi-area comparison or single-year snapshots. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context and sibling names provide sufficient guidance.

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