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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it is a public endpoint, it returns English natural-language text, it preserves sources/conditions/pagination, and it explicitly does not infer eligibility or employer offers. Pagination behavior and the no-inference boundary are genuine additions 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the resource scope comes first, then the behavioral guarantees, then the return characteristics. The opening clause is slightly roundabout but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does reasonably: agreement counts, match types, concessions, preserved sources and conditions, and pagination. The one gap is that it never tells the agent that a valid occupation code must be obtained from search_occupations before calling, which matters given the tool's only required parameter.

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%, including a detailed occupation description explaining internal code vs URL/slug precedence and an enum-documented locale, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that agreements are occupation-linked, leaving the schema to carry the full burden.

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 names a specific resource: occupation-linked labour agreement types, plus the DAMA summary as a separate source. It is distinguishable from get_state_dama_agreements by explicitly calling out the DAMA summary as an additional source rather than the primary subject. The 'same ... as the website' framing is a slightly vague anchor but the resource and its scope are clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the scope boundary 'does not infer eligibility or employer offers', which tells the agent this is a reference lookup rather than a decision tool. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings like get_state_dama_agreements or get_occupation_visas, nor any prerequisite such as needing an internal occupation code first.

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