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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are 'grouped by section,' which is useful context. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional structure beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The action ('List') and resource ('standard crew positions/roles') are front-loaded, followed by concrete examples and a usage hint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The grouping behavior is mentioned, and no additional operational details (e.g., pagination, error handling) are needed for a read-only list endpoint.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the baseline rule, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters. It also adds no misleading semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists standard crew positions/roles for live events, with specific examples (audio engineer, lighting, stagehand, performer) and mentions grouping by section. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear purpose. It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'normalize_positions' by focusing on listing rather than transforming.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand what roles a live event needs.' It tells the agent when to invoke the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since the purpose is unambiguous and there are no parameters, this is adequate guidance.

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