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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, so the description adds real value: it discloses that AyHire auto-generates criteria and a starting search query, and that the role is persisted into the current workspace and mirrored in the web app. It does not discuss duplicate handling or whether a partial failure rolls back the auto-generated criteria, which would have pushed this higher.

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 action and its key caveats are front-loaded in the first clause, and the override conditions follow logically. It is dense — one long sentence plus one short one — but each clause carries non-redundant information about defaults and side effects.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description never says what is returned (presumably a role id needed for follow-on calls like add_people_to_role, set_role_criteria or find_people_for_role). Everything about inputs and side effects is covered, but the return-value gap is a real omission given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains the conditional relationship between `criteria`/`query`/`language` and the automatic derivation, and that `title` plus `brief` are the inputs to that derivation. It doesn't elaborate on `created_after` or the workspace fallback beyond what the schema already says.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a role') and immediately disambiguates the domain term — 'an open position' — so an agent cannot confuse it with an auth role. It also names the downstream intent ('to source people for'), which distinguishes it from create_workspace and other siblings in the list.

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 clearly states the two modes of operation: criteria come from the title/brief automatically 'unless you pass `criteria`', and the GitHub search query is derived 'unless you pass query/language'. That effectively tells an agent not to bother with suggest_role_criteria for the default path. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_roles/get_role, but those are trivially distinguishable.

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