get_industry_employment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the year constraint (>=1960) and the return format (percentage of total employment), but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple read query this is moderate, but gaps remain.

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 very compact, with three clear sections: summary, arguments, returns. Every sentence provides needed information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a simple two-parameter lookup: it covers input format, output semantics, and a constraint on year. With an output schema existing, it need not explain returns further. Minor gaps include lack of mention of data availability limitations or edge cases, but overall it is sufficient.

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 0% (parameters only have titles). The description compensates strongly by providing ISO code format and examples for country, and explicitly stating year must be a four-digit year >=1960. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal information.

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 explicitly states '특정 국가와 연도의 산업 섹터 고용 비율을 조회합니다' (queries industry sector employment ratio for a specific country and year), which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like agriculture or services 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 implies usage by its specificity to industry sector and the required country/year parameters, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives or any exclusions. Since sibling tools exist and are not referenced, guidance is only implied.

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