dol_ui_claims_national

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 that this is a key economic indicator and that spikes indicate labor market stress, which is interpretive context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior or data source specifics, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core function is stated first, then the included metrics, then the economic significance. Every sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately sized for a simple read-only data retrieval tool.

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, no-output-schema tool with 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what data is included and why it matters. It doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema and simple parameters, that's a minor gap. The sibling distinction is clear via 'national'.

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 four parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the domain (weekly claims) which helps interpret 'limit' and 'offset'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 national weekly UI initial and continued claims, and includes the insured unemployment rate and covered employment. It also notes the economic significance, which helps an agent understand the tool's domain. It is distinct from its sibling dol_ui_claims_state by explicitly saying 'national'.

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 this is the national counterpart to dol_ui_claims_state, and the 'national' qualifier helps an agent choose it for national-level data. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, but the sibling name and the description's focus on national weekly claims provide clear context. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing, but the context is sufficient.

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