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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does provide meaningful behavior: it returns 35 professions, the specific data fields included, and a language choice of 'en' or 'ru'. It does not explicitly claim read-only status or mention limitations, but the 'list' semantics and exact count are transparent.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then specify the language parameter. No filler or redundant wording.

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, one-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it states the data scope, output fields, and parameter values. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema only defines language as a string with default 'en'; the description adds the allowed values 'en' or 'ru', compensating for the schema's lack of documentation. It doesn't explicitly say what the language affects, but the value constraint is useful.

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 names a specific resource (iGaming professions) and states exact output contents: 35 professions with department, salary band, and live job count. This clearly distinguishes it from singular lookup tools like get_profession and job 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 this tool is for retrieving a fixed list of professions and their salary/job data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over get_profession, search_jobs, or market_stats. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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