Get employment projections and career outlook for an O*NET occupation.
Returns projected job growth rate, employment numbers, projected openings,
and an outlook summary (bright, average, or below average).
Args:
soc_code: The O*NET-SOC code (e.g. '15-1252.00' for Software Developers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| soc_code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values and specifies the input format with an example. However, it does not mention potential errors, data source, or any edge cases. For a read-only lookup, this is fairly transparent but not exhaustive.
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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with a clear Returns section and Args. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no wasted words.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the return values and parameter format, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks some context about edge cases or when data might be unavailable, but overall sufficient.
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 must compensate. It provides a detailed explanation of soc_code, including the format (O*NET-SOC code) and a concrete example, which fully clarifies the parameter's meaning.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get employment projections and career outlook for an O*NET occupation. It lists specific return values (job growth rate, employment numbers, projected openings, outlook summary), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_occupation_wages (wages) or search_occupations (search).
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 implies usage for when career outlook data is needed but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of the siblings. It lacks alternative guidance or exclusion criteria, making it minimally adequate.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of occupational data: search, details, wages, and outlook. There is no overlap in purpose; even the three 'get_' tools are clearly differentiated by the data they return.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'search_occupations' and 'get_' prefixed tools. The verbs are clear and the nouns describe the resource or data type, making the pattern predictable.
With exactly 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for an occupational data server. Each tool serves a core need, and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of occupational data exploration: search to find occupations, then retrieve details, wages, and outlook. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.