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

With empty annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirement, exclusion of terminal statuses, the 'benefitable-self' fallback, and details on role IDs and statuses. No contradictions.

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 efficiently packed into 4 sentences, with the main purpose in the first line. No fluff, but the parentheses and multi-line format could be slightly streamlined.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers what data is returned (contract tasks/events with agent roles) and filtering behavior. Pagination is in schema. Some users might want return format hints, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, but the description adds context: explains 'kal_event pivot', 'benefitable-self' fallback, role ID meanings, and logic for 'include_pending'. This enriches understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it retrieves contract tasks/events where the agent participates, specifies roles (Hand=4, Reviewer=5, QA=6), and notes non-terminal statuses. It also mentions renaming from 'get-my-jobs', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get-my-bookings' and 'get-contract-events'.

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 highlights auth requirement and optional filters for status/role/contract. While it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool over siblings, the context of agent participation and old name 'get-my-jobs' provides implicit guidance.

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