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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it returns integer IDs, is the tool-based substitute for the `gighq://experience` resource, and works in voice mode. No output-shape detail is needed because an output schema 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?

Three short paragraphs, each with a distinct job: what it returns, when to call it and what to do with the result, and how it relates to the resource. The most important information (returns experience records with IDs) is front-loaded, and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers return semantics, workflow placement, and an alternative access path. The only missing piece is a one-line differentiation from `list_career_entries`, which would remove the last ambiguity in tool selection.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no risk of incomplete parameter guidance. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the user's work experience records along with their integer IDs. That is concrete and actionable. However, the sibling set contains `list_career_entries`, which reads like an adjacent list of the same domain, and the description never distinguishes the two — a meaningful gap for an agent choosing between list tools.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call this before `add_career_entry` or `update_career_entry` to resolve the correct `experience_id`, and confirm the role with the user before saving. That is well above typical guidance. It still leaves the `list_career_entries` vs `list_experiences` choice unaddressed, so it is not fully complete.

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