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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by calling the operation a 'Cheap read' and describing the saved-data scope, though it does not cover auth requirements or what happens when no data exists.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval purpose and then the routing guidance. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure. Annotations cover safety profile, and the description supplies the data categories and sibling routing needed to call this correctly.

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 zero parameters, there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for a no-param tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what data is returned rather than inventing input details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves the user's saved CareerCompass data') and enumerates exactly what is included: objectives, positioning statement, skills, and target market. This clearly distinguishes it from mutate/generate siblings such as generate_career_compass and save_career_compass.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one: prefer it over generate_career_compass when the user just wants to review saved data. That is a direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use instruction.

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