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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the conceptual output (coverage facts, occupations without evidence) but discloses no detail about side effects, return format, or how the optional locale parameter affects results. The description is semantically informative but behaviorally thin.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage trigger is delivered immediately in the second. Every clause 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?

For a simple coverage-query tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description handles purpose and usage adequately. The main gap is the unexplained locale parameter, which leaves the agent to guess whether locale is required or how it alters the result; no output schema exists to compensate.

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% and the description never mentions the lone 'locale' parameter, so an agent receives no guidance on what locale values are valid or how it shapes the coverage answer. Although the parameter is optional (likely has a default), the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a clear purpose: it reports what VOLO covers and what it does not, including occupations lacking evidence. The phrase 'a fact about this site rather than a guess about their job' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling data-lookup tools like get_occupation or find_evidence, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Call this when someone asks whether their job is covered.' This is actionable and clear. However, it does not state when not to use it or name the alternative tools (e.g., resolve_occupation_or_major, find_evidence) that would be more appropriate for specific occupation lookups.

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