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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the company-scoping constraint, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded right after the core action. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and an undocumented pagination scheme, the definition leaves an agent guessing about how to page results and how the status enum affects output versus filtering. For a list tool with three parameters, this is incomplete.

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 three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: it never explains limit, cursor pagination, or whether 'status' is a filter argument (the enum suggests it is, but the description reads as a returned field). This ambiguity could lead an agent to use status incorrectly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists your company's roles') and describes the returned fields (status, location, applicant counts), which clearly separates it from the singular get_role. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Only your company's roles are included' implies when this tool is appropriate (scoped to the caller's own company), but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus get_role, search_talent, or why you would list instead of fetch one. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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