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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety burden is light. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (occupationCode, shared anzsco, optional name, list membership, shortage flag, page URL), pagination behavior, and that this is a public endpoint returning English natural-language text with sources and conditions preserved.

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 purpose, then query modes, then the sibling-routing block. Efficient overall, though the long enumeration of alternative tools and the list/visa-subclass restatement make it denser than strictly needed given the schema already carries those enumerations.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and pagination. Combined with the fully documented parameters and the annotations' safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 page, locale, keyword, visaSubclass and occupationList are already fully documented with examples and enum meanings. The description only restates the filter concepts (lists, visa subclasses) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Search) plus resource (Australian skilled occupation database / ANZSCO codes) and enumerates the query vectors (name keyword or code) and filters. It also names the sibling tools it is not (get_base_occupation, get_occupation_visas, get_occupation, etc.), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Explicit routing: 'Use get_base_occupation for basic facts; get_occupation_visas, get_skill_assessment_rules, get_189_invitations, get_eoi or get_state_nomination for a specific topic' and 'get_occupation requires explicit sections for multi-topic queries.' When-to-use and alternatives are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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