compare_state_unemployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains defaults, constraints (max 10 states, year/month pairing), and special values (month=13), which is strong. It does not discuss error handling or output specifics, but the output schema covers that. It's thorough but not exhaustive.

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 information-dense but well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then parameter rules, then source. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters, their constraints, defaults, and the data source. This is a complete guide for invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully does: explains fips format with examples, maximum states, adjustment options, year/month dependency, and the special annual-average month. This far exceeds the bare schema and gives the agent everything needed to correctly populate parameters.

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 compares LAUS unemployment metrics across up to 10 US states for a single period. The verb 'compare' and resource 'LAUS unemployment metrics' are specific, and the scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_state_unemployment or compare_county_unemployment.

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?

It provides clear usage context: when to use (multi-state comparison), how to specify parameters (fips format, adjustment, year/month pairing, month=13), and defaults (seasonally adjusted). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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