Quarterly Workforce Indicators Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description need not reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying the time range (1990-present), geographic levels, and demographic breakdowns. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph of four sentences, efficiently covering the key aspects: what statistics are available, dimensions, geographic scope, and purpose. No wasted words; it is well-front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 lacks information about the output format (e.g., JSON, CSV) or structure, which is important for a data retrieval tool. However, the input schema is fully documented, and annotations cover safety. Given no output schema, the description could be more complete by specifying return format.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining the meaning of common variables (e.g., 'Emp' for employment) and providing industry examples (e.g., '23' for construction). This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to retrieve quarterly employment statistics from the QWI program. It lists over 32 economic indicators and specifies dimensions like demographics, industry, and geography. The tool name and title are distinct, and the description differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on QWI-specific data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Essential for analyzing local job markets' but provides no direct comparison with sibling tools like acs_data_tool or county_business_patterns_tool. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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