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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by enumerating the returned fields (occupation name, ANZSCO, lists, shortage flag, page URL), which is important because there is no output schema; it omits pagination/rate-limit or ordering behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core search scope before the sibling routing. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical enumerations of list codes and visa subclasses pad it slightly.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields, and pagination is covered by the schema, so an agent has what it needs to call correctly. It could be stronger on result ordering or whether keyword matches are partial, but nothing critical 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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including enums and the 15-per-page default. The description only restates the occupation-list abbreviations and sample visa subclasses without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb (Search) plus a precisely scoped resource (the Australian skilled occupation database, ANZSCO codes for skills assessment/migration) and named search inputs. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_occupation, so an agent can route between list-search and detail-lookup without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling get_occupation for eligibility details, assessing authority, invitation points and state nomination, which covers the primary alternative. It gives no explicit exclusion (e.g. when not to search, or relationship to list_search_options), so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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