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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that includeCourses triggers 'one extra upstream call' and that skills-assessment pathways are returned by default, giving cost and default-behavior context beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every listed field is relevant to a migration agent. The long enumeration in the first sentence is dense but not padded; a slightly tighter structure would help.

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?

With no output schema, the description must disclose the return contents, and it does so exhaustively (tasks, skill level, lists, shortage, authority, visa subclasses, invitations, nominations, DAMA). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and the enum. The description restates the includeCourses behavior ('up to 8 recommended courses') which largely duplicates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get full profile) and resource (one ANZSCO occupation), and enumerates exactly what the profile contains. Accepts a code or a oneuedu.com URL/slug, which clearly separates it from the search_occupations sibling.

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 implies usage by explaining accepted input formats and describing the includeCourses toggle, so an agent can tell it returns data for one known occupation. But it never names the alternative (search_occupations) or states when to reach for this versus searching first.

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