Look up roles

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: result cap of 5, sort order (most jobs first), that counts are scoped to the place's state or country, that the saved role is appended, and that no job search is run. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core action and output come first, then the exclusion and the sibling pointer. Slightly awkward line wrapping and a somewhat overloaded second sentence keep it from a perfect score, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers scope, ordering, caps, and the side-effect profile. For a two-parameter lookup tool, an agent has everything needed 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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds only a small amount — that 'location' drives an open-job count scoped to a state or country rather than a filter — and adds nothing about the 'words' free-text matching behavior (e.g., matching tolerance, max length).

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 ('matches the user's own words ... against FoundRole's role list') and describes the output shape (up to 5 roles, open-job counts, saved role included). It explicitly names the sibling it is not ('jobs_search returns the jobs for a role'), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly implies the trigger condition (user describes work in their own words) and explicitly excludes job search, pointing to jobs_search as the alternative. What's missing is an explicit 'use this when the user hasn't named a role yet' framing, but the routing is unambiguous in practice.

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