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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting contact values are excluded and that the record is public and opt-in. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, error conditions for missing or non-public records, or the structure of the returned object.

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 very concise, two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key constraint (public, opt-in) and the contact exclusion. However, it omits critical parameter details and usage context, making it efficient but incomplete.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'full' vs 'summary' formats mean, what include_extensions does, or what a Career Record contains. It also fails to differentiate from siblings, leaving an agent without enough information 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 only 33% (only username is documented). The description does not mention the format or include_extensions parameters, and it does not explain their meaning or default behavior. It adds no parameter-level context beyond the schema, which is inadequate given the low coverage.

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 returns a public Career Record and specifies the opt-in condition and contact exclusion. However, it does not differentiate from sibling get_my_career_record, which likely serves the same resource type but for the caller's own record.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_my_career_record should be used for the caller's own record, nor does it describe any prerequisites like whether the target user must have enabled MCP visibility (it does imply that, but not as a usage guideline).

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