Get Roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns slugs that are the exact values other tools accept, and that entries include descriptions and skill tiers. This helps the agent predict integration behavior, meriting a score above baseline.

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 slightly longer than typical for zero parameters but each element earns its place: the first sentence states the core purpose, the question examples clarify usage, the DO NOT sentence provides routing, and the hints add cross-tool integration value. It is structured with clear separation, just slightly verbose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a high-quality output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, when to avoid it, how it integrates with other tools, and expected content. No meaningful gap remains.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description further reinforces this with an example call get_roles() showing it accepts no arguments, which is helpful for the agent. A 4 aligns with the 0-parameter baseline.

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 and resource ('List event staffing roles TempGuru provides') and immediately separates itself from get_role_pricing by explicitly naming it as the alternative for cost questions. The example user questions anchor the resource in concrete intents, leaving no ambiguity about what get_roles returns.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use signals via representative question examples ('What kinds of event workers can I hire?', 'Do you have brand ambassadors?') and explicitly states when not to use it ('DO NOT use for what a role costs, use get_role_pricing with a city'). Names the sibling tool directly, leaving no inference required.

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