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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description does add genuine operational context: pageSize cap of 20, the rule that page > 1 requires the original contentVersion, and that responses are natural-language text preserving sources and conditions. However, its claim that the endpoint 'returns English natural-language text' sits awkwardly against the schema's locale default of zh-CN, which could mislead an agent about output language.

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?

Three sentences, no gross padding, and the pagination constraints are usefully front-loaded after the first clause. But the opening phrase 'without full migration policies' is confusing filler that spends space without adding meaning. Structure is adequate rather than tight.

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 5-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers pagination and return-format basics but omits the meaning of the required 'course' parameter and leaves the migration-policy scope undefined. An agent can call it, but not confidently predict what it receives.

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 only 20% (only 'locale' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify pageSize's default/cap and the contentVersion prerequisite for paging, which adds real meaning, but it says nothing about the required 'course' parameter or the page/record relationship. Partial compensation, not full.

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 verb 'Read' plus the resource 'associated occupations' gives a rough sense that this returns occupations linked to a course, but 'without full migration policies' is opaque and never states what the association is. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_occupation_courses or get_course, which likely expose overlapping data. Minimum-viable clarity with real ambiguity.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over get_course, get_occupation_courses, or get_course_packages. The only contextual clue is that it is a 'public endpoint,' which does not help an agent route between siblings. Guidance is effectively absent.

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