dol_ui_claims_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds context on data scope (weekly, state-level, specific metrics) but does not detail pagination, response structure, or how multiple states are returned. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second enumerates the key metrics. No wasted words; every sentence is functional.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the moderate complexity (5 parameters), the description covers the high-level purpose and data types but omits details about the response format, pagination behavior, and how data is grouped. It is not fully complete for an agent to understand expected output without additional context.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the data content (initial claims, continued claims, insured unemployment rate) beyond the schema, but parameter-specific guidance is already sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving state-level weekly UI claims and explicitly mentions the specific metrics (initial claims, continued claims, insured unemployment rate). It distinguishes from the national sibling tool by emphasizing 'state-level' and 'across states', though it could be more explicit about the exact return structure.

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 for state-level comparisons but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the national version (dol_ui_claims_national) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It assumes context from the name and sibling list, but lacks direct contrast.

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