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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: a dated list version, the catalog size, the fact that matches return a wage-level multiple plus earned CRS points, and what a miss implies — all of which an agent needs to interpret empty results.

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 sentences, zero filler. The lookup scope and the match output are front-loaded, and the negative case (unlisted = no points) closes it cleanly.

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 one-parameter, annotation-backed, output-schema-less tool, the description does the right thing by summarizing both the accepted inputs and the returned fields (level multiple, CRS points). Fuller detail on match count or result ordering would be nice but is not essential.

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% and the single parameter's schema already gives the same examples ('software engineer', '72201') quoted in the description, so little is added. The description confirms that either free-text job title words or a bare NOC code are acceptable, but that is essentially restatement.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus a named, uniquely-scoped resource (IRCC's high-wage occupation list, 186 NOC 2021 codes) and the two supported query forms. Nothing in the sibling set (CRS calculation, CELPIP tools) overlaps, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

The description frames the context clearly: the list version in effect (Nov 3, 2026) and the decision-relevant consequence that an unlisted occupation earns no high-wage or job offer points. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' pointer, but no sibling covers this lookup, so the absence is low-risk.

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