get_tasks

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the data-resolution chain (BERUFENET→KldB→ISCO→ESCO→O*NET) and the hard prerequisite that crosswalks be imported. It does not say what happens when crosswalks are missing or when the chain breaks, which is the key failure mode for a resolution-dependent tool. Note readOnlyHint=false while the tool is a read/lookup operation — the description does not contradict this, but does not explain it either.

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 tight sentences; the core purpose is front-loaded before the technical resolution chain. The parenthetical about crosswalks is dense but earns its place as a prerequisite.

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 values need no explanation, and the resolution chain is described. Still missing: behavior on unresolvable occupations, what partial results look like when only one source resolves, and any note on the `sprache` parameter — relevant gaps for a 5-parameter crosswalk-dependent tool.

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?

At 60% schema coverage the schema carries the required `beruf` formats and defaults, so baseline applies. The description implicitly maps to two parameters — `quellen` (onet vs. berufenet are both named) and `nur_kern` ('Core') — but says nothing about `sprache` or `limit`, leaving those purely schema-driven.

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 (canonical task list for an occupation) and enumerates the two underlying data sources (O*NET task statements Core/Supplemental, BERUFENET activities). An agent can separate it from get_skills or get_occupation on substance, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only operational guidance is the prerequisite that crosswalks must be imported, which implies usage conditions without stating them.

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