nc_get_partial_unemployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only (likely but not stated), what the response format looks like, how pagination works (though limit parameter exists), or any potential side effects or data freshness. It also does not clarify if special schemes are mutually exclusive or inclusive, leaving ambiguity.

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 a single, well-constructed sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is concise and front-loads the primary function. It could arguably be split into two sentences to improve readability, but it remains appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to cover what the response contains and any behavioral nuances. It does not describe the structure of returned company data, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or error conditions. The special scheme clarification is helpful, but overall the description is minimal for a data-retrieval tool and leaves some gaps.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explicitly naming the special nickel and civil unrest schemes, which maps to the enum values 'nickel' and 'exactions'. This clarifies the meaning of the type parameter and enriches the agent's understanding beyond the bare enum description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'companies on partial unemployment schemes in New Caledonia'. It explicitly mentions the special nickel and civil unrest schemes, distinguishing it from other nc_* tools like nc_search_companies or nc_get_company_statistics, which cover different data domains.

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 the tool is for retrieving partial unemployment data, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool instead of others. The guidance is implied through the topic, but not explicit.

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