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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields, including statuses with end dates and the specific question of whether a NEW application can be made.

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 two sentences and front-loads the substantive returned data before explaining the input mode. The first sentence is dense and list-heavy but every element corresponds to actual output information an agent needs.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description reasonably covers the return values by listing going rate, thresholds, skill level, shortage-list status, and new-application eligibility. It does not explain behavior when no matching code is found or when search text matches multiple occupations, leaving a minor gap.

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%, and both parameters are documented with examples, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds only a minimal clarification that either a four-digit code or search text can be used, which is consistent with the schema but not substantially beyond it.

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 resource and the specific data returned: Home Office going rate, thresholds, skill level, shortage-list status, and whether a new Skilled Worker application is possible for a SOC 2020 code. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as check_sponsor, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 gives invocation guidance ('Give a four-digit code, or search text'), implying use for looking up a specific occupation by code or text. It does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or what to do if neither input is supplied, so usage guidance is only implied.

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