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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns names only and explicitly excludes SEO HTML, which clarifies the output's shape and content.

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 short sentences carry the full message: what the tool lists, what it is used for, and when to prefer an alternative. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the content domain, the intended use, and the boundary versus list_taxonomies. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description reinforces the output semantics ('names only') that relate to the missing parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List LexGO job function names') and includes concrete examples ('lawyer, in-house counsel, paralegal, notary'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_taxonomies by noting its limited scope, so an agent can tell it apart from 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?

It states the intended use ('for use as function_id filters') and names a specific alternative with a clear condition ('Prefer list_taxonomies for the full vocabulary'). This gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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