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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds value by clarifying that only public data is returned, that browser handoffs/source pages may be produced, and that personal/resume data should never be sent—useful behavioral context beyond 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 two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first explains when to use it, the second explains what it returns and what it must not be used for. Every sentence carries key decision information with no wasted words.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety/idempotency, the schema documents all parameters, and an output schema is present, the description supplies the remaining elements: purpose, usage boundary, return types, and critical privacy guardrail. The tool is adequately described for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

The description maps directly onto the 'kind' parameter categories ('occupation, resume-situation, military-transition'), while 'query' and 'language' are already documented in the schema. The limit parameter is adequately self-evident through its default, minimum, and maximum constraints.

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 verb and resource: it finds a published Rung occupation, resume-situation, or military-transition guide. It also names the return content ('public guide facts, source pages, and browser handoffs') and separates this from other search/editing tasks, making its purpose distinct.

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 starts with an explicit 'Use when someone needs...' trigger and then gives concrete exclusions: 'Do not use for live jobs, employer search, resume editing, qualification decisions, or private work history; never send personal or resume data.' This gives the agent actionable choose/avoid guidance.

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