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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: that some matches are approximate ('rank dropped', 'root word') and that the call is free, both of which affect how an agent should treat and cost the results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by match-quality caveat, downstream usage, and cost in three tight sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only, 2-param lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result shape, match reliability, and downstream usage well enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the undocumented `limit` parameter.

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% for both parameters. `title` is self-evident from the purpose statement, but `limit` is never mentioned anywhere -- not in the schema, not in the description -- so its meaning and default must be guessed. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (job title → O*NET-SOC occupation codes), plus what each result contains (official title and description). This is unambiguous and distinguishable from enrichment/skill siblings.

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?

Explains a concrete use case -- feeding `onet_codes` into predictleads discover_job_openings -- and notes the call is free, which helps an agent decide to invoke it. It gives no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, 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.