cos_occupation_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds behavioral context by describing the return fields (O*NET codes, titles, descriptions) and suggesting follow-up usage, but does not disclose details like pagination or rate limits, which are not expected for this simple read tool.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, return content, and follow-up guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, making it well-structured and easy to scan.

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 search tool with well-documented schema and readOnly annotation, this description is sufficient: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use results. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of returned fields. Minor gaps like result limits or default state behavior are not critical.

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?

Both parameters (keyword, location) have complete descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search occupations by keyword using the CareerOneStop API,' which clearly identifies the action, resource, and data source. It also specifies the return content (O*NET codes, titles, descriptions), distinguishing it from sibling cos_licensing.

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 implies usage for keyword-based occupation queries and advises using returned O*NET codes for 'more specific lookups,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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