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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only stylistic guidance, saying nothing about auth needs, duplicate handling, or what a successful add returns.

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 short sentences, purpose first and the outcomes tip second, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple add operation.

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 low-complexity write tool with full schema coverage, a complete annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. Only the absence of any alternative-tool routing keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (dates format, outcomes limit, evidenceUrl) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'measurable outcomes' echoes the outcomes field without adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a role to your work history'), so the agent knows this writes a work-history entry. It is distinguishable from add_project by the 'role'/'work history' framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Offers content advice ('include measurable outcomes') but no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus alternatives like add_project or update_my_profile. The agent is left to infer that this is the tool for logging past employment.

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