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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose behavior: it names the scoring basis (shared skills from JSA ASC), the live job-count enrichment, and that results include a 'why' explanation plus candidate-have/missing task breakdown. It omits any statement about read-only safety, rate limits, or data freshness caveats, keeping it below 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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the required input and followed by the return payload, so nothing is wasted. It is a run-on with many comma-separated clauses that would read better as two sentences.

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 correctly enumerates what is returned (score, shared tasks, have/missing tasks, live job counts, sample jobs), which is the key missing structured information. The unexplained 'limit' parameter is the main residual gap.

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 coverage is only 33%: only 'role' is documented in the schema. The description compensates for 'verified_tasks' by explaining the accepted formats (free text or H1R3 task codes like admin.payroll), but 'limit' is never explained anywhere. Partial compensation warrants a baseline 3.

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 (return most adjacent occupations) plus the exact resource and matching basis (shared skills via JSA Australian Skills Classification). No sibling tool does adjacency matching, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from list_task_taxonomy or search_jobs.

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?

The description implies when it applies ('given a role title or ANZSCO code, optionally with verified tasks') but never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition. An agent must infer that this is for career-adjacency exploration rather than job search.

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