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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific return fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose auth requirements beyond what the schema notes, nor does it explain openWorldHint implications (e.g., API results may change). With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences plus an example, all purposeful. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are named, and the example concretely demonstrates usage with realistic values. 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 2 params, no output schema, and safe annotations, the description covers the essential calling contract: what it does, what it returns, and how parameters are formatted. Without an output schema, the listed return fields partially compensate, though a fuller description of the response shape might be helpful. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are well documented. The description adds an example showing exact format for _apiKey and notes the code comes from onet_search, which is marginal added value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: "Occupation detail for an O*NET-SOC code" and enumerates what it returns (title, description, alternate names, sample job titles). It distinguishes itself from sibling onet_search by noting the code comes from onet_search, making the relationship explicit.

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 to use this tool (when you have an O*NET-SOC code and need details) and points to onet_search as the source for codes. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like onet_skills or onet_technology, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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