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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait: it returns entries, not judgements, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), how results are paginated or limited, or any potential side effects. The single behavioral note is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and a key boundary. There is no redundancy or filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what 'entries' entails, how 'verified change records' are defined, how limit and locale affect results, or how this search relates to the sibling getters. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional information.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for any of the three parameters (limit, query, locale). The description only implies that 'query' is the search keyword via 'by keyword,' but it does not explain the purpose or format of 'limit' or 'locale.' It fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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: it searches occupations, majors, and verified change records by keyword. It uses a specific verb and resource, and adds a boundary ('Returns entries, not judgements') that distinguishes it from judgment-oriented tools like find_evidence or resolve_occupation_or_major. This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (get_occupation, get_major, find_evidence, etc.). It does not mention when to prefer this broad search over a specific getter, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions. The usage context is only implied by the search verb.

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