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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context that results are aggregate EOI snapshot counts, occupations must be in the same scope, and VIP is required. It does not describe the return format or how missing or invalid occupations are handled.

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 two tight sentences with no waste. The core action and key constraints are front-loaded.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain month and state semantics, does not describe the comparison result, and gives no guidance beyond the occupations count and VIP requirement.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for all four parameters. It only clarifies that occupations should number two to five and share scope, and hints at VIP via 'VIP required'; it says nothing about the meaning or format of month and state.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Compare aggregate EOI snapshot counts for two to five occupations.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_eoi_snapshot, rank_occupations, or compare_pathways.

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 gives important constraints: two to five occupations, same scope, and VIP required. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_eoi_snapshot or rank_occupations, nor does it state when not to use it.

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