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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic purpose and provides no information about return format, ordering, filtering, locale behavior, or any other operational characteristics.

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 text is very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted words. However, it is a fragment rather than a structured explanation and is too sparse to be considered appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.

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 conveys the essential occupation-to-degree mapping but leaves crucial operational details unexplained, especially the 'locale' parameter and the meaning of 'slug'. With no output schema or annotations, this description is not sufficient for fully reliable invocation.

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 does not explain either the 'slug' or 'locale' parameters. The agent must guess what 'slug' refers to and has no basis for understanding the role of 'locale'.

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 purpose: mapping an occupation to the degrees/majors that lead into it. It is specific enough to distinguish itself from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like find_transition_paths.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended use case is only weakly implied by the phrase 'which degrees lead into this occupation.'

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