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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context on top: the ordering guarantee (most recent first) and the fact that intra-company promotions are collapsed into a progression rather than listed as separate flat entries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical example is illustrative rather than redundant. Minor structural weakness: 'including promotions... and education' grammatically attaches education to 'Every title', which slightly muddies what the resource actually returns.

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?

Zero parameters, annotations present, and an output schema that carries the return shape — so the description only needs to convey scope and ordering, both of which it does. Nothing required to call this correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or arguments are needed to invoke it.

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 concrete resource and scope: every title held plus education, ordered most recent first, with promotion chains inside one company called out via a worked example (Manager → Senior Manager → Director at MEARS). That distinguishes it somewhat from get_experience, but it never names get_experience or get_education, so an agent must infer that this is the aggregated chronological view rather than the structured lists.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of education and cross-company progression hints this is the synthesized narrative view rather than a raw list, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of get_experience/get_education when...' guidance and no exclusions. An agent facing four overlapping siblings (get_contact, get_education, get_experience, list_experience) gets no routing rule.

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