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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: it discloses the exact fields returned (status, onshore/offshore eligibility, ranking, thresholds, allocation/used/remaining places) and that figures span this and the last program year, giving the agent a sense of data shape and scope.

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?

Two dense sentences, purpose front-loaded before the optional-parameter effects. Every clause carries distinct information (status, eligibility, requirements, ranking, thresholds, places, year range). It is long but not padded, so it earns its length, though the second sentence is clause-heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields and their time span. All seven parameters are functionally accounted for, and the tool has no required inputs, so an agent can call it correctly from this definition alone; only minor gaps remain around pagination limits and default behavior of an all-states overview.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not: occupation augments each program with acceptance and matching state invitation records, and includeOccupationList combined with state (and ideally visaSubclass/program) yields a paginated occupation list (40/page), which explains the otherwise opaque page parameter.

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 the exact resource (state/territory nomination programs for subclasses 190 and 491) and enumerates the data each record contains, so an agent knows what it retrieves. The subclass scoping implicitly separates it from the 189 siblings (get_189_invitations, estimate_189_invitation), though no sibling is named explicitly and no explicit retrieval verb appears in the description body.

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 only implied through parameter behavior: 'add occupation to see which programs accept it' and 'add includeOccupationList for a state's occupation list' describe what happens when inputs are supplied, not when to choose this tool over get_189_invitations or search_occupations. There are no explicit when-to-use statements or exclusions.

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