get_county_employment

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 adds useful behaviors like default industry ('10'), default ownership ('private'), and omitting year/quarter for all data. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, error conditions, data lag, or authorization requirements, leaving notable gaps for a non-annotated tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important parameter guidance. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 5-parameter schema and output schema availability, the description covers the essential invocation context: data source, FIPS format, defaults, and optional time filtering. Minor omissions such as valid quarter range or ownership/industry codes are not required for basic use, but keep it just shy of fully complete.

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%, but the description compensates strongly: FIPS format and example, industry default meaning 'all industries', ownership default, and explicit instruction to omit year/quarter for all available data. This transforms bare parameter names into usable invocation details, especially for the required fips.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get quarterly employment data for a US county') and names the data source (BLS QCEW), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_county_wages and get_county_unemployment. The FIPS example further clarifies the exact scope.

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 gives clear context: it is for county-level quarterly employment from QCEW, with defaults and optional year/quarter behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it misses the top tier for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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