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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add work experience', with no information about side effects, required permissions, side effects, or error handling. The agent gains no insight into the operational behavior of this mutating tool.

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 extremely short at four characters, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks necessary elaboration to be useful, and its brevity does not serve the agent's need for understanding tool behavior. This is similar to the 'Process' example.

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 complex tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, this description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain return values, use cases, or relationships with sibling tools, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema with no high-level understanding of the tool's purpose or context.

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 input schema provides extensive descriptions for all 18 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details, but since the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '添加工作经历' directly translates to the tool name 'add-work-exp', essentially restating it without adding any specific scope or context. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add-edu-exp' or 'add-project-exp'. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'modify-work-exp' or 'add-edu-exp'. The description is a generic phrase with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate use cases, leaving the agent without directional context.

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