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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the list of sections but does not disclose other behavioral traits like response structure or limits. With high annotation coverage, the description adds marginal value.

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 sentence, concise, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and lists the sections efficiently. No unnecessary 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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input and the available sections. It could mention that the code should come from jobs.occupations.search, but that is implied by the sibling structure and the code parameter description.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats the section names but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the code parameter's schema includes an example and a hint to use occupation_search.

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 verb (Get), resource (detailed occupation info from O*NET by SOC code), and lists the specific sections available (overview, skills, knowledge, abilities, technology skills, tasks). This distinguishes it from siblings like jobs.occupations.search which likely returns a list of occupations.

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 state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the agent is left to infer that this is for detailed info after obtaining an SOC code. No guidance on when to omit the section parameter.

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