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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-open-world lookup. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: it can retrieve one or more roles, matching is case-insensitive, and company or position name fragments are accepted.

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 short and front-loads the returned content before explaining the argument. The 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly developer-centric but does not waste meaningful space.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the key lookup semantics and returned data categories. It does not explain ambiguous-match behavior or no-match behavior, but those gaps are modest given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does: company_or_id accepts either an id from list_experience or a case-insensitive fragment of a company or position name, with concrete examples.

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 the resource (roles) and the kind of details returned (highlights, accomplishments, tech stack), which clearly distinguishes it from list_experience. However, 'Full details' is a somewhat generic verb phrase and the description does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings like get_career_timeline.

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?

It implies usage by noting that the argument can be an id from list_experience or a company/position name fragment, which helps route the agent. But it does not explicitly say when to use this tool rather than list_experience or other sibling getters, nor when not to use it.

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