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 added value here is that it is a public endpoint returning English natural-language text with sources, conditions and pagination preserved. With no output schema, disclosing the return shape and pagination is genuinely useful. It does not mention rate limits or result-size characteristics, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose and authoritative scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the operational guidance (occ, then occ+passportCountry) follows before the return-format note. Dense but every element carries information; the first sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy, which costs it the top mark.

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 four-parameter, zero-required, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, that access is public, that output is natural-language rather than structured, and how parameters compose. Only minor gaps remain (no guidance on what happens with an unknown authority, or result volume), so it is close to complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining parameter interaction: occupation alone resolves the authority and pathways, while occupation plus passportCountry determines which TRA streams (OSAP vs TSS) apply. That added relational meaning is real value the schema text does not supply.

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 and resource (skills assessment rules for an Australian assessing authority) and immediately bounds the scope by naming the covered authorities (TRA, ACS, VETASSESS, Engineers Australia, etc.). It also enumerates the content dimensions returned (qualification, work experience years/hours/recency, English, fees, processing time, exclusions, misconceptions), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling lookup tools like get_occupation or get_visa_fees without opening the schema.

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 concrete invocation guidance: 'Pass occupation alone to look up its authority and pathways' and 'with occupation (and passportCountry) says which apply,' which tells the agent exactly when the extra parameter changes the answer. It also notes the narrow TRA sub-case (MSA, PSA, Job Ready, OSAP, TSS). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just short of 5.

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