get_occupation_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (task-level breakdowns) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the breakdown comes in. The reference to an external website adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and additional context. The first sentence clearly states the main function, and the second provides useful supplementary information about the full report. There's minimal waste, though the external website reference could be considered slightly extraneous.

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 single-parameter tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about return format, error handling, and behavioral characteristics that would be important for an AI agent to use this tool effectively. The reference to external content partially compensates but doesn't fully address completeness 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('identifier'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (which documents it as an 'Occupation slug or SOC code'). No additional syntax, format, or usage details are provided about the parameter.

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: 'Get task-level AI capability breakdown' with specific details about analyzing job tasks for automability. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_occupation_risk' by focusing on task-level analysis rather than overall risk scores. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'get_career_transitions' or 'get_specializations'.

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 mentioning 'which specific job tasks are most/least automatable' and referencing a full report website, suggesting this tool provides detailed breakdowns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_occupation_risk' (overall risk) or 'search_occupations' (search functionality), nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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