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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: unknown roles come back as unmapped with fuzzy suggestions, and the tool never writes positions. Return-shape detail is partly deferred to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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 carrying the mapping, examples, sibling contrast, write-exclusion, and fallback behavior with no filler. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — input domain, boundaries, and unmapped-role handling — is fully addressed, so an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there (roles with batch limits, hint with length cap and examples). The description reinforces that input is free-text role strings but says nothing about the hint parameter's effect on normalization, so it adds little 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Map free-text crew role strings ... to the Soundcheck global position catalog') and grounds it with concrete labels (FOH, A2, sound guy, LD, stagehand). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_positions, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative ('list_positions returns the full catalog') and states the negative boundary ('Does not create or write positions'), which cleanly separates mapping from catalog lookup and mutation. It stops short of an explicit trigger such as 'call this when ingesting raw crew sheets', so context is clear but not fully spelled out.

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