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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: an access prerequisite ('VIP required') and a hard result ceiling of six. It does not explain what aggregate submitted counts represent or how ties/ordering 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?

A single compact sentence with the key constraint (max six, ANZSCO grouping) front-loaded. 'VIP required' is terse to the point of being cryptic, slightly reducing clarity per word.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what is returned (related occupations plus aggregate submitted counts) and the access requirement. Gaps are minor: no indication of ordering, tie-breaking, or behavior when no related occupations exist.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It hints that the input is an ANZSCO unit/minor group reference, but never states that 'occupation' is a 6-digit ANZSCO code (only the regex pattern implies that).

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 and resource ('Return ... occupations related by ANZSCO unit or minor group') with an explicit result cap of six. It distinguishes itself from siblings only implicitly via the 'related by ANZSCO group' framing, not by naming alternatives like search_occupations.

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 statement of when to use this versus search_occupations or rank_occupations. The only guidance is the prerequisite 'VIP required', so the agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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