get_occupation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (it returns the *full* record, so expect a large payload), but says nothing about behavior for an invalid or unknown SOC code, which is the main failure mode for a keyed lookup.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and key, then a compact list of returned sections. No filler and nothing an agent must skip past to find the essential information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return structure, yet its field list is a helpful preview. Together with the SOC example, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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 0% — the 'soc' property has no description at all — so the description carries the burden and largely meets it by giving the exact dotted format example "15-1252.00". It doesn't state case sensitivity, whether the suffix is optional, or accepted variants, so it stops short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve the full record), a specific resource (one O*NET occupation), and the exact key (SOC code) with a concrete example format. The enumerated payload (tasks, skills, RIASEC interests) makes it unmistakable versus a search/match tool.

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 phrase 'for one occupation by SOC code' implies exact-key lookup and thus contrasts implicitly with match_occupations, but it never names the sibling or says what to do when you only have a title or fuzzy query. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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