APIbase

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

While annotations cover operational characteristics (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the external data source (O*NET) and enumerating the available content sections (skills, knowledge, abilities, etc.) beyond what annotations provide.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action and uses an em-dash to concisely list the data sections. Every word serves a purpose with no extraneous information.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool with full annotation coverage, the description is appropriately complete. It identifies the data source, required identifier type, and content structure, though it could optionally mention that results vary by section parameter.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters including the SOC code format and section enum values. The description lists the available sections but largely mirrors the schema without adding significant semantic depth beyond the schema definitions.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), clear resource ('detailed occupation info from O*NET'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the unique identifier requirement ('by SOC code') and data source (O*NET), clearly differentiating it from generic job listing searches.

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 requirements through 'by SOC code' (indicating a specific identifier is needed), but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like jobs.occupations.search or provide explicit workflow guidance.

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