search_occupations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention rate limits, or describe edge cases (e.g., behavior with null query/group). This is a gap, but the simple search nature mitigates the risk.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage context, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage scenario, and parameter semantics. It is complete for a low-complexity search tool with two optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains both parameters clearly: 'query' is a text search with an example ('software developer'), and 'group' is restricted to 'major' or 'detailed' with examples of each. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which only shows nullability.

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 function: 'Search BLS occupations by name.' It also specifies the intended outcome ('find SOC occupation codes before querying wage data'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_industries and aligns with the workflow context.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to find SOC occupation codes before querying wage data'), providing clear context. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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