list_eligible_occupations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the codes are placeholder slugs, not official Treasury codes, and that the output is informational. However, it could be more explicit about the exact return format, and the phrase 'plus the placeholder-slug caveat' is slightly ambiguous.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by necessary caveats. It is not overly long, but the disclaimer is somewhat wordy, and 'plus the placeholder-slug caveat' is an awkward construction that reduces readability.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, limitations, and applicability. It could be clearer about the exact return type (e.g., an array of occupation code strings) and what 'plus the placeholder-slug caveat' means, but it is generally complete.

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 shows zero parameters with full coverage (properties: {}), so the description naturally needs no parameter explanations. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 it 'Returns the onboarding picker subset of TTOC-eligible occupations' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as check_tip_deduction_eligibility or estimate_tip_deduction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides clear context and boundaries: it's informational only, not tax advice, applies to tax years 2025-2028, and instructs users to verify with the IRS. This implies when to use the tool and cautions against using it for official tax decisions, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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