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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns over 1,000 occupations with specific fields, but does not disclose pagination behavior or other nuances beyond the annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search O*NET occupation taxonomy by keyword') and includes key output details.

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 search tool with pagination parameters and a large dataset, the description covers the main purpose and output fields. It implicitly references pagination via parameters but could explicitly mention how start/end affect results. Output schema likely fills remaining 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond confirming keyword search and mentioning output fields (SOC codes, titles, scores) which are not input parameters. Baseline 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 specifies it searches the O*NET occupation taxonomy by keyword and returns SOC codes, titles, and relevance scores. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobs.occupations.details (get details) and other job listing search tools.

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 usage for keyword-based occupation taxonomy search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.listing.search. It lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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