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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful specifics beyond that: roles are returned newest first and each includes counts of picks, set aside, not looked at yet, and shortlisted.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states scope, ordering, and return content 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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented optional parameter, the description supplies the key behavioral detail an agent needs: ordering and the aggregate counts included per role. No output schema is needed because the return content is described.

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 single workspace parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including its optional default and a pointer to list_workspaces. The description references the workspace option but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (roles/open positions) and its scope (current workspace or specified workspace), plus ordering and returned counts. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_role or list_workspaces, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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: list roles in the current workspace or a named workspace. The schema points to list_workspaces for workspace discovery, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_role or other sibling tools.

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