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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the data is 'checked against the authority's official pages,' which signals source fidelity and freshness, plus the TRA-specific pathway logic (MSA, PSA, Job Ready, OSAP, TSS). It omits any statement of coverage limits or freshness date.

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 resource and its scope, and the second sentence is genuinely actionable. The long parenthetical authority list overlaps the authority parameter's own examples, a minor redundancy, but every other clause adds distinct information about returned fields.

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 carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so comprehensively (eligibility criteria by program, English, fees, processing time, exclusions, misconceptions). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter including 'TRA decides OSAP / TSS by passport.' The description reinforces the occupation+passportCountry interaction but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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+resource (retrieve skills assessment rules) and names the exact domain: Australian assessing authorities' requirements. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_occupation and get_visa_processing_times by explicitly enumerating what content it returns (qualification, experience, English, fees, processing time, exclusions).

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?

Gives clear invocation context: 'with occupation (and passportCountry) says which apply' and 'Pass occupation alone to look up its authority and pathways,' which tells the agent how to drive the tool with different parameter combinations. It does not, however, name a sibling tool as an alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it falls 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.