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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description reinforces this by emphasizing public data and warning against personal use. It adds context about the nature of the data without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver all key information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary usage scenario.

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?

The description provides enough context for when and how to use the tool, including misuse warnings. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to elaborate on return format. It could mention that it returns example data, but the phrase 'examples are needed' implies this.

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?

Only the 'soc' parameter has a description in the schema (20% coverage). The tool description does not explain the roles of limit, offset, section, or language, leaving their semantics unclear. It does add indirect context for 'soc' by linking it to an exact Rung, but overall parameter guidance is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to explore public occupation examples after finding an exact Rung via find_public_guides. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by focusing on bounded examples rather than general guides.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: use after find_public_guides, when bounded examples are needed. It also gives clear prohibitions (not treating examples as personal claims, not sending personal data), which are valuable guidelines.

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