codif_classify_occupation

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output format ('códigos + probabilidades'), mentions the classification granularity options (1 or 2 digits), and indicates batch processing capability ('una o varias glosas'). Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and open-world characteristics, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 extremely efficient - two sentences that cover purpose, input, output, and key behavioral aspects. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 classification tool with comprehensive annotations and schema coverage, the description provides good context about the classification system, granularity options, and output format. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return format. It could benefit from more guidance on when to choose 1 vs 2 digit granularity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It mentions the array input and output format, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's already documented in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Clasifica' - classifies), the resource ('glosas de ocupación' - occupation descriptions), and the classification system ('CIUO-08.CL'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing specifically on occupation classification rather than activities, datasets, or statistical data operations.

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 context by specifying the input format and classification granularity options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codif_classify_activity' or other classification tools. It provides technical parameters but no comparative guidance.

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