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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, real-time data status, authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The description only states what the tool does, not its operational characteristics.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No redundant words; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the format of the comparison result, but it does not. It also does not clarify the relationship to sibling comparison tools. However, the tool is simple and the description covers the basic purpose and parameters.

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% for the single parameter 'ids'. The description adds meaningful context by listing the specific fields used for comparison (wages, demand, etc.), which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the parameter description.

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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'roles', and specifies the fields used: wages, demand, outlook, entry requirements, and work profile. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_outcomes' and 'evaluate_pathways' by focusing on role comparison with occupation fields.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_outcomes' or 'evaluate_pathways'. The description does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The schema hints that IDs come from 'list_roles', but that is minimal.

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