Consult Career Positioning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the key non-persistence behavior ('without saving it'), which is the most important trait an agent needs to know. It does not mention other potential side effects, but for a consult-only generation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, resource, basis, and side-effect boundary without wasted words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and side-effect. The only notable gap is that market_context is not explained, but since it is optional and the tool is low-complexity, the description is still largely complete.

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%, so the description needs to compensate by explaining how market_context affects the output. It does not mention the parameter at all. The agent is left to infer from the property name alone what content should go in market_context.

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 uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('career strategy'), clarifies the grounding ('CV-grounded'), and states the purpose ('for review') and side-effect boundary ('without saving it'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_career_strategy and get_career_strategy.

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 conveys the intended context: use this when you want a career strategy to review, not one to persist. It does not explicitly name the save_career_strategy sibling or state exclusions, but the 'without saving it' phrasing gives a clear enough usage boundary.

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