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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it enumerates what each record contains (scope, stage, whether the stage can move a judgement, source tier) and gives a specific data-shaping instruction ('Repeat the scope rather than smoothing it away'). This reveals behavior that would otherwise be unknown.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes: the first defines scope, the second defines record contents, and the third gives a distinctive behavioral instruction. The final sentence is slightly cryptic but still purposeful.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable picture of return contents and filtering scope. It falls short on documenting the locale parameter and on giving any clarity about how slug should be formatted or resolved, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 maps 'occupation' to the required slug and 'optionally for one task' to taskId, which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names. However, the locale parameter is not mentioned, and no format or value constraints are given for any parameter.

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 identifies the resource ('verified evidence records') and its primary scope ('for an occupation, optionally for one task'), which sets it apart from note- or transition-related siblings like find_notes or find_transition_paths. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the noun phrase clearly implies a lookup operation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and it does not name any sibling tools or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'for an occupation, optionally for one task'; there is no 'use when...' or 'not for...' guidance.

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