get_industry_turnover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default behavior (latest observation) and that providing date range yields a time series. However, it does not explain the 'measures' or 'adjustment' parameters, nor the NAICS format expected, leaving gaps in behavioral expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage detail and a prerequisite. No redundant wording; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description omits guidance on 'measures' and 'adjustment,' which are important for customizing queries. While the output schema may cover return format, the description is not fully complete for a tool of this complexity, though it does cover the main use case and default behavior.

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 adds meaning to from_date/to_date by specifying 'YYYY-MM' format and implying time series behavior, and it implies naics is an industry code. But it leaves measures and adjustment completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 gets labor market turnover data (job openings, hires, quits, layoffs) for an industry by NAICS code. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_state_turnover and get_regional_turnover, which are geography-based.

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 provides clear context: 'Shows the latest observation by default. Provide from_date and to_date (YYYY-MM) for a time series.' It also instructs to 'Use search_industries first to find NAICS codes,' which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls 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.