get_career_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the recommendations are in (e.g., list of occupations with scores). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get recommended career transition paths') and adds qualifying details concisely. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the input and output context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (providing transition recommendations based on risk and skills), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects or output details. For a tool with no structured support, it should do more to explain how results are structured or any limitations, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, with the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Occupation slug or SOC code.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it does not explain what 'identifier' entails (e.g., examples of slugs or SOC codes). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recommended career transition paths'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'from a given occupation to lower-risk alternatives that leverage similar skills.' This differentiates it from tools like get_occupation_risk or search_occupations by focusing on transition recommendations rather than risk assessment or general search.

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 'from a given occupation to lower-risk alternatives,' suggesting it's for risk mitigation scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_occupation_risk (which might provide risk data without transitions) or search_occupations (which might find occupations without transition paths). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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