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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds genuinely new context: authentication via the One U Education account, a required declared planning scope, and the guarantee that credentials/identity are never tool arguments. The data caveat that trade categories include technicians and are not a detailed taxonomy is exactly the kind of misuse-preventing detail annotations cannot convey.

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 what is returned, then usage exclusions, then data caveat, then auth requirements. Every sentence carries distinct information; only the auth clause is wordy enough to slightly blunt the flow.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety semantics; the description fills the remaining gaps (auth, side-effect freedom, data shape). The one loose end is 'declared planning scope' — with no parameters, it is unclear how the agent supplies or verifies that scope, which is a real calling ambiguity.

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?

Zero parameters and an empty schema, so no parameter explanation is needed; baseline is 4. The description's note that IDs should be copied unchanged is a useful (if minor) hint about how returned values feed into sibling tools.

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+resource: 'Read the Forms input choices, including the existing coarse occupation categories.' It also scopes the content ('coarse occupation categories', 'trade includes technicians'), which distinguishes it from the finer-grained search_planning_occupations and get_occupation siblings. The phrase 'Forms input choices' is slightly product-specific jargon, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Explicitly rules out the heavier planning siblings: 'does not require a dossier, save facts or run a calculation,' which steers the agent away from create_planning_dossier and create_planning_calculation. It also gives a usage instruction ('Copy category IDs unchanged'). It never names the alternative tool to use when finer occupation data is actually needed, so it stops short of a 5.

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