related_certificationsWhat else serves the same occupation? Traverses on SOC only — a certification sharing solely an instructional program (CIP) is not related (contract § 4).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A certification id to find others like it, copied from a search result's id field | |
| limit | No | Optional page size (default 20, at most 50) | |
| offset | No | Optional: the next_offset from a previous answer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional maximum number of related certifications"New value: +"Optional page size (default 20, at most 50)"Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: the next_offset from a previous answer",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The certification id to relate from"New value: +"A certification id to find others like it, copied from a search result's id field"Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "LU_CERT_ONET_29114100_50CD2891D4"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful semantic constraint: traversal happens on SOC only and CIP-only matches are excluded. This goes beyond the structured fields and does not contradict 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?
Two short sentences front-load the user-facing use case before the technical qualifier. Every clause contributes: the question, the traversal rule, and the CIP exclusion. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 tool with one required parameter, the definition covers core semantics and the schema documents pagination. However, since there is no output schema, it would be marginally stronger to explicitly state the result shape (e.g., a list of related certification records), so it is not a 5.
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%, with id, limit, and offset each documented including defaults and source guidance (e.g., 'copied from a search result's id field'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 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 frames the tool with a clear question ('What else serves the same occupation?') and a specific verb ('Traverses on SOC only'). It explicitly contrasts with CIP-only relations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like certifications_for_program.
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 opening question identifies the use case: when holding a certification, find other certifications serving the same occupation. It also states a firm exclusion (a certification sharing only an instructional program is not related), giving an explicit criterion for what will not be returned. It does not name alternate tools, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.