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

Annotations already provide safety and idempotency hints (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds context about the ESCO taxonomy and multilingual support, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination specifics or result format. No contradiction with 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information (ESCO taxonomy, occupations and skills, 27 languages). No extraneous 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 the presence of an output schema and thorough input schema, the description is complete enough for this simple search tool. It covers what the tool does, its domain, and language support, enabling correct agent selection.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage; each parameter (text, type, language, limit, offset) is well-described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just mentioning '27 EU languages' which is already part of the language parameter description. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states it searches the ESCO taxonomy for occupations and skills, and mentions support for 27 EU languages. The verb 'search' matches the tool name, and it clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'jobs.skills.details' and other job search tools which focus on listings rather than taxonomy.

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 searching the ESCO taxonomy but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'jobs.skills.details' or 'jobs.occupations.search'. No conditions for not using it are mentioned.

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