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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the otherwise-unknown return contents (score, band, URL), which is genuinely useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't address empty-result behavior or ranking/ordering, leaving a small gap.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the usage condition and the chained call. Every clause carries information and there is no boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema and a simple two-parameter read, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and how to chain into get_ai_exposure. Minor absence of guidance on empty results or how matches are ranked keeps it just short of complete.

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%, with both query and limit fully documented including bounds and default. The description only implies title-matching semantics, adding nothing the schema doesn't already say. Baseline 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 and resource ('Find occupations whose titles match a search') and enumerates what comes back (AI Exposure Score, band, page URL). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_ai_exposure by positioning itself as the lookup step that feeds it.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a job title is ambiguous') and names the follow-up tool with the exact handoff ('call get_ai_exposure with the exact occupation'). No explicit when-not-to-use or note about skipping the search for exact titles, so not a full 5.

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