Review an Experience entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing exactly which checks run, which hints at the shape of the findings. However, it does not say whether findings are scored, pass/fail, or free-text, and gives no indication of how the optional keywords input changes behavior.

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 with a clean colon-delimited checklist; no filler and no redundant restatement of the title. The dense enumeration is efficient, though the list is long enough that a slight structural break (e.g., grouping structural vs. language checks) would aid scanning.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries the full burden, and it leaves the return format undefined as well as the semantics of the optional keywords argument. For a review tool whose output an agent must interpret, this is a substantial gap.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions 'keywords' only as one of the reviewed dimensions, leaving it ambiguous whether keywords is an input to check against or an output finding, and the required 'description' parameter is never explained (format, length, single vs. multiple entries).

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 ('Check') and a specific resource ('one Experience description'), then enumerates the exact dimensions examined (length, opening line, bullet count, numbers, action verbs, duty phrasing, keywords, AI-sounding text). That enumeration distinguishes it reasonably well from review_headline and review_profile, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: the phrasing 'one Experience description' suggests a single-entry review, but there is no statement of when to call this versus lint_field, review_headline, or keyword_coverage, and no prerequisites (e.g., is a draft required first?). An agent must infer routing from the tool name.

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