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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read. Beyond that, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: ordering (newest first), inclusion of removed/corrected outcomes with retracted_at and the rule that they never count, plus definitions of current and next. This is rich context an agent would not get from annotations alone.

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 the core scope and ordering, then adds only necessary details about retracted outcomes, current/next stages, and role scoping. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 output schema, the description does a good job explaining the returned stages, source attribution, retraction behavior, and current/next semantics. It is nearly complete for a read tool, though the undocumented role_id parameter remains a minor gap.

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 50%: username is documented, but role_id has no schema description. The tool description reinforces that outcomes are scoped to one role and one person, but it does not compensate by explaining role_id format, constraints, or expected values, leaving a meaningful documentation gap.

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 specific resource: one person's hiring outcome history within one role, including the stages and fields returned. It also clarifies the scope boundary that the same person in another role has separate outcomes. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope: read one person's outcome history in one role. The description does not state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_person_evidence, get_role_funnel, or record_outcome, nor does it provide explicit exclusions.

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