bls_employment_by_industry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the behavioral hint that it indicates growing/shrinking sectors, but doesn't disclose output format, time unit, seasonality, or data limitations. This is acceptable but minimal given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary insight about growth/shrinkage adds value without bulking the text. Every word earns its place.

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?

This tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent can expect. It mentions 'growing or shrinking' but not the actual return fields, sector naming conventions, or whether results are time-series or a single snapshot. With only 2 optional parameters and a safe annotation profile, the description is functional but leaves moderate room for agent uncertainty.

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 100%, with both start_year and end_year described in the schema (including defaults). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, not even mentioning that a date range can be specified. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters, and the description doesn't need to repeat them, though it could have enriched them.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('employment numbers'), and the breakdown dimension ('major industry sector'). It also adds an interpretive angle ('Shows which sectors are growing or shrinking') that distinguishes it from generic series tools like bls_series_data or bls_cpi_breakdown, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 through its resource specificity ('employment by industry') but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as bls_series_data or bea_gdp_by_industry. There are no exclusionary statements or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria from the resource name alone.

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