get_state_turnover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key constraints: 'Total nonfarm only', 'no industry breakdown', and data availability 'from October 2021 onward'. This goes beyond the tool name and helps set expectations, though it does not describe output format or edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear one-line purpose, followed by key constraints and a helpful parameter hint. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 covers the tool's unique scope and one parameter, but with no annotations and no schema descriptions, it leaves critical gaps around date range usage and adjustment options. This makes the description incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no structured guidance.

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 description explains only the 'fips' parameter with a concrete example, but the other three parameters (to_date, from_date, adjustment) are left undefined. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so for 3 of 4 parameters, which is a significant gap for correctly invoking the tool.

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 function: 'Get state-level labor market turnover data' with a specific verb (get), resource (labor market turnover), and geographic scope (state-level). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'Total nonfarm only — no industry breakdown at state level', which separates it from industry-level tools like get_industry_turnover.

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 on when to use this tool (for state-level turnover, nonfarm total) and an implicit exclusion ('no industry breakdown at state level'), suggesting industry breakdown is handled elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, so it misses the top tier.

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