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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the output order ('newest first') and the fields returned (company, period, description, stack, page), which is more than the annotations provide, though it stops short of explaining pagination or what 'page' actually represents.

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 efficient fragment with no wasted words and the most important information (roles, newest-first ordering, returned fields) front-loaded. It is arguably too terse and cryptic in places, which keeps it from a 5.

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 simple read-only list tool with one fully documented optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but leaves clear gaps: it does not clarify what 'page' means, offers no usage guidance versus siblings like get_profile, and relies on external context for 'His'. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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%: the single optional locale parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Language of the answer (default en)' with an enum and default. The description does not add any parameter details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific resource ('His roles') and ordering ('newest first'), then enumerates the returned fields (company, period, description, stack, page). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects and get_skills, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' and the possessive 'His' relies on external context to identify the subject.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as get_profile or list_projects. An agent must infer that this tool is for retrieving work experience rather than related sibling resources.

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