APIbase

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive properties, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to mention the external data source nature (openWorldHint), response structure, or that results vary by language parameter.

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, dense sentence front-loaded with the verb. The em-dash effectively separates the action from the specific field details. No words are wasted; every phrase conveys specific content types or the access method.

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 simple 3-parameter schema and good annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's scope by listing specific return fields (occupation descriptions, ISCO codes, etc.). While it lacks an output schema, the field enumeration provides sufficient expectation setting for a lookup tool.

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 baseline is met. The description mentions 'by URI' and lists content types ('occupation descriptions', 'skills') that loosely map to the 'type' enum, but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or usage rationale 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('ESCO resource details'), and specific content returned ('occupation descriptions, essential/optional skills, ISCO codes, skill relationships'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'jobs.skills.search' (which finds resources) by specifying it retrieves details 'by URI'.

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 a dependency on having a URI ('by URI'), but the schema description carries the explicit workflow guidance ('Get URIs from esco_search'). The description itself lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'jobs.occupations.details' or 'jobs.skills.search'.

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