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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or how the overview is generated. The description only lists content areas, missing any safety or operational details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's scope. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool with a straightforward purpose, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which explains return values) and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential content areas. It does not miss anything critical for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could be slightly more explicit about the read-only nature.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics since none exist.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing a high-level overview of location, work mode, availability, preferred roles/domains, and work authorization. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (education, experience, etc.) by being a summary rather than a specific category, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

The phrase 'High-level overview' implies the tool is used for a general summary rather than detailed specifics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the usage context implicit.

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