get_related_roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral trait that the result set is 'deterministic' and 'small', but says nothing about ordering, default limit, or behavior for an unknown slug.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource, with the scoping rule (shared career category) immediately following. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is minor: the default for limit and the failure mode for an unrecognized role slug.

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% ('Career role slug.' and 'Maximum related roles.' with min/max constraints), so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-value detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Get') and resource ('roles'), and explains the derivation rule: roles sharing the same Jobicy career category as the requested role. This differentiates it in substance from get_similar_jobs and get_role, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanism described (fetch related roles by shared career category), and 'small deterministic set' hints at when this is preferable to a similarity-based tool. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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