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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context beyond annotations: suggestions are not persisted, must be shown to the user, and are intended to be saved later via set_role_criteria. It does not describe the return shape or any operational limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause earns its place by adding purpose, persistence behavior, or the follow-up workflow.

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 simple, read-only, one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what it does, when to use it, and what to do with the result. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain the return format and only indirectly clarifies role_id semantics.

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 0% for the single parameter role_id. The description implies that role_id identifies the role whose title and brief are used, adding some meaning, but it does not explicitly name the parameter or state that it must reference an existing role. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 and resource: 'Suggest criteria for a role from its title and brief.' The phrase 'without saving them' directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool set_role_criteria, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow: show suggestions to the user, then save with set_role_criteria if desired. It also gives concrete conditions for use: 'when the brief changed or the current criteria feel off.' This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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