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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral trait that this is a 'broad, lower-precision' query, which is useful context about result quality. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result format, or any rate limits, which would add further transparency.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the precision caveat is stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's scope and precision trade-off. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., a list of certifications), but the tool name and schema largely imply that.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (cip, limit, offset) with examples. The description adds the conceptual framing that cip is a 'broad academic cross-reference' but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('cross-reference') and resource ('instructional program (CIP)'), and distinguishes it from an occupation lookup. It is clear that this tool maps a CIP program to certifications, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool certifications_for_occupation, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 says it is 'a deliberately broader, lower-precision question than an occupation lookup — never its peer (contract § 4).' This gives clear context for when to use it (broad academic cross-reference by CIP) and implies when not to use it (when a precise occupation lookup is needed). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the contrast is clear enough.

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