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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a 'zero-input, public evidence and instruction bundle,' which clarifies the output nature but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like data sources or limitations beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs in the tool's purpose, audience, and input source without fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Return a zero-input, public evidence and instruction bundle') and is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no nested objects, and a rich output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently explains the tool's function. It could benefit from mentioning what the output bundle contains or how it should be used, but the combination of annotations and description covers the essentials for a simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description explains that the tool requires no input and uses local role context, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool returns a bundle for assessing a leadership role fit, specifying the target audience (recruiter, hiring manager, executive-search agent) and the input source (local role context). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Dan Crane role fit, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 implies usage for role-fit assessment but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions the tool uses 'its own local role context' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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