get_state_unemployment

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavior: default seasonal adjustment, the 'nsa' option, handling of missing dates (latest observation), annual-only mode (M13 rows), and the included metrics (labor force participation rate, employment-population ratio). This is comprehensive for a data retrieval 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?

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details, then source/alternative. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is dense but not bloated.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 params, output schema present), the description covers all necessary context: defaults, date handling, annual averages, param formats, data source, and sibling distinction. No significant gap exists.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully: fips with examples, adjustment values ('sa'/'nsa'), date format (YYYY-MM), and annual_only semantics (M13 rows). Every parameter is explained in the description.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('monthly LAUS unemployment data for a single US state'), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting single-state scope. It also mentions the alternative tool for multi-state comparison.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the alternative tool 'compare_state_unemployment' for comparing multiple states. Also explains parameter usage (adjustment, dates, annual_only) with concrete examples, making the intended use cases clear.

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