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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing on top: no statement of what is computed, how partial dates or a missing end are handled, or what the result looks like.

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?

Three words is technically concise, but here brevity is under-specification rather than economy: nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive is said.

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 and no parameter documentation, the description is the only channel for explaining inputs and the returned value, and it leaves both unstated. An agent would have to guess the computation and the result format.

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 two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that startIso is required and endIso optional, nor whether a missing endIso means "today" — a critical semantic for a date-range calculation.

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?

"Job experience calculator" restates the tool name/title without a real verb or output concept. It doesn't say whether it sums tenure across roles, computes duration between two dates, or produces a formatted resume-style total, so an agent can't distinguish its actual function from siblings like calculate_age.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent why it would pick this over the many date/duration-adjacent calculators in the sibling list.

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