get_occupation

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description usefully confirms the profile aggregates classification, tasks, skills, and links. However it says nothing about the unexplained `aktualisieren` (refresh/live network fetch) behavior, which is exactly the kind of trait the annotation set does not cover, and it sits oddly against readOnlyHint=false.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why usage and parameter guidance are missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be described. Still, two of three parameters are opaque and the relationship to closely related siblings (get_tasks, get_skills, search_occupation) is unaddressed, leaving gaps for a tool in a crowded namespace.

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 only 33%: beruf_id is documented in the schema (berufenet/kldb/isco/onet/ESCO identifier forms), but `sprache` and `aktualisieren` are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate at all, so the agent cannot tell what language selection or refresh actually do.

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?

Names a specific resource (an occupation or occupational class profile) and enumerates what the profile contains: classification, tasks, skills, and links. It is clearly a single-record fetch rather than a search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_occupation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of search_occupation, get_role_context, get_tasks, or get_skills, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-occupation entry point.

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