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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides some behavioral guidance by instructing that every path must include real constraints (time, pay cut, seniority) and one actionable step. This gives the agent an idea of output expectations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether this is read-only, any side effects, or pagination. It is a partial but useful disclosure.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core idea, but it is cryptic and mixes behavior instructions with the purpose. It is not structured for clarity; the directive 'Never present a path without its constraint' is an instruction to the agent rather than a descriptive statement, making it less concise in meaning.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret 'options,' or what 'slug' and 'locale' are. The behavioral note is the only redeeming part, but it does not cover the basic contract an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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, locale). It does not mention either parameter or give any hint about their meaning or format. The description is entirely disconnected from the input schema, leaving the agent to guess what 'slug' and 'locale' refer to.

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 says 'Options for someone in this occupation' which is vague and does not explicitly state it finds transition paths, despite the tool name. It fails to name the resource or distinguish from sibling tools like find_majors_for_occupation or find_evidence. The purpose is only implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools. The description assumes the agent knows when to call it, which is not the case among 15 find/get tools.

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