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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what comes back (canonical title, codes, salary bands, context), but says nothing about miss behavior when no profile matches, locale/language fallbacks, or data freshness — useful context for an openWorld lookup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and scope, then enumerates the return payload compactly. No preamble or filler; the only minor weakness is that the field list is a comma run rather than prioritized.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it still names the key fields. Annotations cover read-only and idempotency. What remains unaddressed is edge behavior (no match, locale defaults), which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: each parameter (keyword, locale, language, customvalues, addrelatedskill) is documented in the schema, including the conditional trigger for addrelatedskill. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'known job profile', so it neither compensates for nor exceeds 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns authoritative detail for a known job profile') plus the concrete payload: canonical title, SOC/O*NET code, job family, skills, salary bands, work context. An agent can tell this is an exact-profile lookup. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (e.g. autocomplete_job_profile for partial/typo input), so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

'Known job profile' implies the exact-match/canonical-record case, which implicitly routes away from fuzzy or autocomplete lookups. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or sibling reference (autocomplete_job_profile, map_job_to_skills) is given, so the routing has to be inferred.

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