JobTech taxonomy search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the kind of value returned (ids plus official names) but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or how partial matches are ranked beyond what the schema states. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no waste, and the sibling comparison is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does state what comes back (concept ids and official names), which covers the main return-value gap. For a 3-parameter read tool with solid annotations this is nearly complete, missing only ordering/pagination expectations for the list-style result.

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%: the `type` enum and `query` are already documented in the schema, while `limit` carries only default/min/max with no description. The description's list of concept domains loosely maps to the enum but adds no matching semantics or guidance on `limit`, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (finds) and the exact resources returned (concept ids and official names) across the taxonomy domains, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_jobs. An agent can tell what this tool produces and why it exists without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition ('usually only needed when a name is ambiguous') and names the alternative that handles the common case ('search_jobs matches names itself'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance an agent needs for tool selection.

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