get_labor_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data is for the latest period, that the region parameter adds a caveat rather than filtering, and implies read-only behavior. It does not explicitly state idempotency or side effects, but the nature of the tool makes these clear.

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 two sentences plus a parameter note, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, what indicators, national scope, and region caveat. No extraneous information.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and parameter usage. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed.

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 covers the parameter region with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the parameter exists 'for API symmetry' and that passing a region 'adds an explanatory caveat,' which goes beyond the schema's technical 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 it returns key labor-force indicators (participation, employment, unemployment, underemployment) from the PSA Labor Force Survey for the latest period. The verb 'get' and resource 'key labor-force indicators' are specific, and the national scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_population_stats or get_inflation_stats.

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 explicitly states the tool is national-only and the region parameter is a caveat, guiding agents not to use it for regional data. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond the national limitation.

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