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

With annotations already marking the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags: it discloses that an operator key with no role returns a routing path instead of erroring, that a role key answers for itself, and that recommended_host_wake is advisory because FreedomOS does not wake the agent. This significantly clarifies what the tool actually does at runtime.

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 longer than average but earns its length: it front-loads the critical 'call this first' instruction, then covers key states, return contents, and follow-up routing. The only minor issue is some redundancy between the prose paragraph and the final 'Routing' summary, though the compact routing recap arguably helps an agent parse the flow quickly.

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 tool with no output schema and a non-trivial state-dependent behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what happens with a role key, what happens with an operator key, what happens when no role is bound, what the returned brief contains, and which sibling tools to call next. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the key-related semantics of agent_id, explicitly saying to omit it when calling with that role's own key, which is information not present in the schema. It does not add much beyond the schema for companyId, but the schema already covers that adequately.

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 uses a clear action and resource: this is an identity/role-introspection tool that returns the current role brief or the attach/hire path when no role is bound. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools by naming get_team_roster, attach_agent_key, interview_for_hire, and hire_agent_with_context as next steps, so an agent can tell what this tool is versus what it is not.

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?

The description gives explicit routing instructions: call it first on every turn, whether using a role key or operator key, and explains what happens when no role is attached. It also names the exact sequence of follow-up tools for the no-role case and tells the agent to pass agent_id from get_team_roster after attaching, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use this tool.

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