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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint: true. The description adds context by stating the tool returns 'complete current and former affiliation list with roles and dates,' which tells the agent the scope and detail of output without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences, first providing usage context and second describing output. No extra words, perfectly front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what it returns and when to use it. Could potentially mention if there are any limitations, but overall complete for the context.

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 input schema has no parameters, so description does not need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

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 tool as returning professional affiliations and memberships for Jennifer Rebholz, listing specific organizations and mentioning both current and former affiliations with roles and dates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bio or get_credentials.

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 explicitly starts with 'Use when someone asks about...' providing clear guidance on when to invoke. It lists specific organizations to help identify relevant queries, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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