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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the output is a markdown card and lists its contents, which is sufficient for a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention error handling, language behavior, or any side effects, though these are minor for a get operation.

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?

Two sentences total, with the content list front-loaded and the usage hint second. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core purpose, content, and how to obtain required arguments. The only gap is the undocumented 'language' parameter, which slightly lowers completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It gives a hint about 'slug' via the list_professions reference and examples, but it never mentions the 'language' parameter or its default behavior. This leaves a significant gap for a parameter that the schema does not document.

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 names a clear verb ('get'), a specific resource ('profession card'), and enumerates its contents (responsibilities, KPIs, skills, tools, salary bands, career path, FAQ). It also references the sibling tool list_professions, making it easy to distinguish from get_company and get_job.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_professions to find valid slugs and gives concrete examples. It does not mention exclusions or alternative usage, but the workflow is clear and no other tool would serve the same purpose.

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