Career profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantive context: salary units (million Toman per month, from a survey), how to read the histogram (share of participants per pay band), the time window of the growth figure, and the presence of a `search` payload carrying jv_search arguments for open ads. Remaining gaps are minor (no size/pagination of the response), and nothing conflicts with the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds output detail; nearly every sentence carries information. The trailing `search` sentence is loosely attached and slightly hard to place, costing a bit of crispness.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does the needed work by enumerating return contents (salary histogram, growth, satisfaction, entry steps, neighbouring careers, ad-search arguments). The only soft spot is the under-specified `search` value and how the caller is meant to use it.

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 100%, including the enum and default for city_size, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds unit semantics for the salary output rather than for inputs, and the sentence about `search` holding jv_search arguments is ambiguous about whether that is a returned field or an input, which is not clarified anywhere in 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 specific verb and resource ('Get ... career-guide profile of one job title') and enumerates the payload (salary distribution, demand, duties, skills, path). The clause 'Use after jv_careers' plus 'one job title' separates it cleanly from the jv_careers listing tool.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance ('Use after jv_careers') tells the agent this is the detail call for a single career. No exclusion is offered against overlapping siblings such as jv_pay_stats, so an agent wanting only salary data has no stated rule for choosing between them.

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