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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description does not need to re-litigate safety. It instead adds real behavioral detail annotations cannot: an invalid record is rejected with the same refusal a save would produce, and the response is a hints list plus a sparse per-entry emptiness map that omits fully populated entries.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and the return shape is spelled out in the last, with no filler. A few phrases are awkwardly inverted ("It serves a check of a draft", "to the schema fields it holds no value in"), which costs some readability but not correctness.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing both returned members, including the path notation (roles[0].projects[2]) used as map keys. The only thin spot is deferring the structure of hints entirely to save_career_record, which is acceptable given that sibling is available, but leaves a small gap for an agent that never calls it.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already states the record must be in the shape get_career_record returns. The description reinforces that it is the whole record rather than a fragment, but adds no syntax or structural guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

"Check a whole career record without storing it" names a specific verb and resource and immediately rules out the save sibling. The follow-on clauses (schema fit, what a save would drop, what entries leave empty) pin down the three checks performed, so an agent can distinguish it from save_career_record and get_career_record.

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 serves a check of a draft" implies the pre-save validation use case, and the parallel with save_career_record ("refused as a save is", "hints as save_career_record gives them") hints at the ordering. But it never explicitly says to call this before save_career_record or names any tool to avoid, leaving the routing to inference.

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