search_occupation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and uses it well. It explains that matches are returned as [code, label] pairs and that results are ordered by likelihood. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the raw schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The second paragraph provides essential search and output-format details without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what to search, how to phrase the search, and what the result format is. No critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single query parameter. It explains what the query should represent (a job description), how to phrase it (profession-level terms), and what the response pairs look like. This is exemplary parameter guidance.

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 the tool's function: finding occupation codes for a described job. It names the specific resource (ISCO-88 occupation codes) and the action (find/search), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like create_cv or lookup_country.

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 gives concrete guidance on how to query: search for the profession as ISCO-88 words it, not the person's own job title. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but for a single-query search tool this is sufficient usage context.

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