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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds important context about access tiers and bounded scope. It does not explain pagination, rate limits, or how missing data is handled, but it meaningfully complements the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, and every clause adds useful scope or access-tier information. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

The description covers the return content and account-tier constraints, which is useful, but with four optional filter parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, it leaves significant gaps around parameter usage and result shape. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for correct invocation.

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 should carry the burden for the four parameters, but it only indirectly references occupation via 'any single occupation'. It provides no semantics for visa, month, or state, and does not document formats such as the six-digit occupation code or MM/YYYY month pattern.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Return', and names the outputs: bounded aggregate submitted, invited and lodged counts plus score ranges. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_eoi_history or get_score_distribution.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining that free accounts can query a single occupation for the latest exact pathway while VIP unlocks historical and broader scope. It does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, which keeps it below a 5.

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