list_career_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses nothing beyond the core function - no mention of auth requirements, no pagination behavior, no sort defaults, no mention of what happens with account-scoped vs profile-scoped keys. The profile_id nuance in the schema is a significant behavioral note that the description omits entirely.

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?

Extremely concise single phrase '経歴一覧を取得' with zero wasted words. It's arguably under-specified, but what's there is efficient. For a list tool with rich schema documentation, this brevity is acceptable, though it borders on too terse for non-Japanese readers.

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?

This is a list tool with 6 parameters, including a conditional required param (profile_id for account-scoped keys), pagination options, and sorting. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, authentication scoping behavior, or edge cases. The single Japanese phrase is inadequate for the complexity of this tool's behavior.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Notably, profile_id's important conditional requirement is documented in the schema but not reinforced in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '経歴一覧を取得' (Get career list) clearly states a specific verb+resource (list/retrieve career entries) and differentiates from siblings like get_career_entry (single entry) and create_career_entry. However, it doesn't mention filtering or pagination capabilities that are evident in the schema, so it's clear but minimal.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling set includes list_custom_entries, list_hobbies, list_skills, etc., and the description offers no differentiation or context about when listing career entries is appropriate. The profile_id constraint (required for account-scoped keys) is only visible in the schema, not reinforced in usage guidance.

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