search_occupation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description's source list is consistent with the openWorld flag. However, it never explains that readOnlyHint=false despite being a 'find' operation — plausibly because the 'aktualisieren' (refresh) parameter writes to a cache — and discloses nothing about cost, latency, or refresh semantics.

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 fragment with zero padding — efficient, but so terse that it stops short of carrying the behavioral and routing information the description should provide. No waste, yet also little substance.

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 six parameters, an output schema, and annotations already present, the description needn't explain return values or safety. It is still incomplete on the two highest-risk gaps: no when-to-use guidance against a crowded sibling set and no explanation of the caching/refresh behavior implied by readOnlyHint=false.

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 67%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description's enumeration of the four sources maps directly onto the 'quellen' enum and thereby clarifies that parameter, but it adds no meaning for 'sprache', 'kldb_code', 'limit', or 'aktualisieren', whose semantics (especially the refresh flag) remain opaque outside the schema.

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 concrete verb ("Berufe finden") plus the resource and enumerates the four underlying sources (BERUFENET, ESCO, KldB, O*NET), so an agent knows this is a multi-source occupation lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_occupation or search_jobs, but the verb 'finden' vs 'get' carries implicit differentiation.

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 tool versus get_occupation, search_jobs, crosswalk, or get_role_context, all of which live in the same space. The source list hints at coverage but gives no conditions or exclusions, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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