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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses two behaviors an agent cannot see in structured fields: results are truncated to 10 and the tool cannot be used to page through the whole catalog. Match semantics (prefix vs substring, whether partial codes work) and result ordering remain undisclosed.

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 short sentences with the capability first and the constraint second; nothing is redundant or buried.

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 search tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no description of what a result record contains, how matches are ranked, or how to widen a too-narrow query, an agent still has gaps before calling it confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it does add that the single query accepts either an ANZSCO code or a name, which is the key semantic. It does not state code format (e.g., 4- or 6-digit), case sensitivity, or partial-match behavior, and 'non-empty' is looser than the schema's minLength of 2.

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 ('Find ... occupations') and specifies the two accepted lookup keys (ANZSCO code or occupation name), plus a result cap. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as rank_occupations or get_related_occupations, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one useful constraint — a non-empty query is required and the full catalog cannot be enumerated — which tells the agent this is a lookup, not a browse. It names no alternative tools for full-catalog listing or ranked/personalized occupation views, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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