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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds minimal context by providing an example of the data (2210 Information Technology), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the list is exhaustive, sorted, or paginated. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not particularly rich.

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 a single, compact phrase that communicates the subject matter without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 has no parameters, has an output schema, and is well-annotated, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could be slightly more explicit by stating that the tool lists all occupational series codes, since the description alone reads as a definition rather than an action. Still, the name and annotations fill in the gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is fine since there are none to explain.

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 'Occupational series codes (e.g. 2210 Information Technology)' identifies the resource but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It primarily defines what occupational series codes are, relying on the tool name to convey the listing action. It does not distinguish from sibling tools beyond the resource name, making the purpose slightly vague.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, nor does it mention any sibling tools or exclusions. It is purely a definitional statement with no usage direction.

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