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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the output structure (SOC code, title, relevance score) and providing an example call with credentials. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not disclose rate limits, result limits, or error behavior—though for a simple search, this is a minor gap.

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 sentences plus a concrete example, with the core action and output stated up front. No filler or unnecessary detail. The example is compact and directly illustrative.

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 the tool's low complexity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential: purpose, example, and output fields. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or error handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward search tool. The output description compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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% for both parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs. The description adds an example call showing how to supply _apiKey and keyword, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Search occupations by keyword') and a clear resource (O*NET occupations) with the return fields (SOC code, title, relevance score). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onet_occupation, onet_skills, and onet_technology, which presumably fetch details, skills, or technology data rather than keyword search.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says to search by keyword, but provides no guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools such as onet_occupation or onet_skills. The implied usage is clear from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative selection criteria are stated.

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