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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether the tool requires any authentication, what the output format is, or whether it is read-only. The phrase 'argue from this occupation's own records' hints at the tool's logic but is not enough to inform an agent about side effects, performance, or error behavior. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: one sentence that names the tool's function and its intended use case. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, and every word adds value, with no filler or repetition. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 simple schema (2 params, no enums, no output schema), the description still lacks important context: it does not define what 'own records or task judgements' means, nor does it reference the sibling tools that might be competitors or complements. It also doesn't explain any return format. For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context beyond a single sentence to be considered complete.

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 for the two parameters (slug and locale). The description does not explain that 'slug' is the occupation's identifier or that 'locale' might affect the language of results collecter. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent. Given the low coverage, the description falls short of fully clarifying the parameters' semantics, but it is not entirely absent—so I grant a 3 as the baseline for minimal compensation.

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 specific verb and resource ('find notes for an occupation') and adds a distinctive qualifier ('argue from this occupation's own records or task judgements'), which distinguishes it from the generic 'find_notes' sibling. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's focused scope, though it could be more explicit about the exact nature of the notes.

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 implies usage: 'Use it to point someone from their own page to the wider answer' gives a clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'find_notes' or 'find_evidence', and there are no exclusions or criteria for when not to use this tool. The guidance is better than nothing but lacks explicit routing.

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