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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey the main behavior: returning the functions a company is organized into and which occupations sit in each. It stops short of explaining locale handling or response details, but for a simple listing tool the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first states the subject matter and output, the second gives the usage trigger. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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 straightforward list tool, the description covers purpose and usage context well. However, with no output schema and no explanation of the optional locale parameter, an agent lacks some information needed to call it optimally, so it is only minimally 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%, and the description does not mention the 'locale' parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation and does not, there is no added semantic meaning for the tool's only 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 clearly identifies the resource: business functions and the occupations that belong to each. The phrase 'rather than themselves' and 'business side' distinguishes this tool from personal/occupation-oriented siblings, giving an agent a precise sense of what it does and when it applies.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when someone describes a company rather than themselves.' This is clear usage context, though it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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