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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful business rule — roles current or ended within 24 months are reference-eligible — which is non-obvious domain context. However, it says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, validation failures, or what the mutation returns.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the eligibility rule following. No filler, though the parenthetical task-format note is slightly terse relative to how much parameter ground it is covering.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, with 7 undocumented parameters. The description covers one domain rule and one parameter's format but omits return behavior, validation expectations, and most field semantics — insufficient for a mutation tool of this shape.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the format of the tasks array ('taxonomy codes or {custom}'), but leaves title, start_date, end_date, employer_name, employer_abn, and employer_domain entirely undocumented (e.g., date format, ABN expectations).

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Add an employment-history role', which is clearly distinct from siblings like add_cert and add_referee. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from related tools such as add_cert, add_referee, or update_profile. The 24-month eligibility note hints at a constraint but is not framed as usage direction.

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