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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the data source (Dept. of Labor CareerOneStop API), which is mild context, but says nothing about credentials handling, rate limits, or result shape beyond what's already declared.

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 front-loaded sentence plus one example call — no wasted phrasing. The example is mildly redundant with the schema's examples array, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 doesn't need to explain return values, and the read-only annotations cover behavior. The source attribution and example give an agent enough to call it correctly, though an explicit pointer to the single-occupation sibling would close the routing 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents occupations, location, and _apiKey thoroughly. The inline example call duplicates the schema's own examples rather than adding new meaning about formats or edge cases.

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 and resource ('Compare salaries across occupations') plus the scope 'multiple U.S. occupations,' which implicitly separates it from the single-occupation sibling careeronestop_salary. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so a small amount of differentiation is left to inference.

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 multi-occupation scope hints at when to prefer this over the single-occupation salary tool, but the description never states when-not-to-use it or names the alternative. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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