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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns categories and examples, but doesn't disclose details like whether the response is paginated, whether the code must be exactly formatted, or what happens for invalid codes. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, 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 with a clear example. Every word earns its place, and the example is front-loaded after the purpose statement. No fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit return-format details, but no output schema exists and the description's example plus schema cover the essentials. A 4 reflects the minor gap around response structure.

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 both parameters. The description adds an example call showing the code and _apiKey format, which is helpful but not deeply beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('technology categories and example software/tools for an O*NET-SOC code'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like onet_occupation and onet_skills. The example call reinforces the purpose.

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 need technology/tools for an occupation code. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but the context signals and sibling list show related O*NET tools, and the description's specificity is enough to guide selection. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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