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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ('each match's record and the slug') and confirming it is a multi-match lookup rather than an exact resolution.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by return content and a concrete example. No filler and the example earns its place by disambiguating input shape.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably compensates by naming what each match contains (record + slug). For a 2-parameter search with 100% schema coverage, this is close to complete; only exact-match vs fuzzy behavior is left implicit.

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 both parameters (including the kind enum and name length bounds) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's JSON example restates the input format rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (DOL's PERM records) scoped by name, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like employer_profile and lookup_case. The title's broader 'employer, law firm or occupation' is narrowed into the actual searchable entity.

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?

Implies the workflow context by stating the result includes 'the slug that employer_profile takes', effectively routing the agent to the follow-up tool. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you already have a slug), so it stops short of a full 5.

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