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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the UI behavior, what sections appear, that edits happen inside the opened view, that each save creates a new version, and what is returned. It also covers the fallback HTML output for clients that do not show interactive views.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence, but it becomes wordy and nested, especially around the card/view behavior. Some phrasing is redundant, such as 'Show the person their whole career record. Calling it shows it to them.'

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden well: it explains the interactive display, the versioned editing behavior, and the returned summary plus HTML fallback. An agent has enough information to understand both the side effects and the output.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is complete, so there is nothing parameter-specific to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show the person their whole career record.' It clearly explains what calling the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings such as get_career_record or check_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 gives clear usage context: 'It serves a request to see their record, and their check that the record is true and complete.' It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar requests.

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