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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: 'Does not create or write positions' and 'unknown roles are returned as unmapped with fuzzy suggestions.' This clarifies edge-case behavior and reinforces the non-mutating nature, which is valuable context on top of the annotations.

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 three sentences with no redundancy and no repeated title text. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage context and behavioral caveats, with every sentence earning 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema present, this description is complete: it defines the input semantics, distinguishes the tool from its nearest sibling, clarifies edge-case handling for unknown roles, and confirms the operation is non-mutating. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions and constraints (roles array, max 64 entries, hint field), so the heavy lifting is done by the schema. The description adds helpful examples of role strings and the hint's purpose, but that is illustrative rather than essential semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action—'Map free-text crew role strings... to the Soundcheck global position catalog'—with concrete examples like FOH, A2, and sound guy. It also differentiates itself from the sibling list_positions by framing this as a mapping operation rather than a catalog browse, so an agent can distinguish them without reading schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you have role labels like... and need catalog position ids and canonical names/sections.' It also names the alternative, list_positions, and states exactly when to use that instead, providing clear routing between siblings.

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