get_level_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool should be called first (a behavioral trait) but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output structure beyond 'find level names'. The lack of behavioral details reduces transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the requirement and purpose. The second gives a concrete parameter rule. Every word 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's role as a prerequisite mapping function. It explains the core action and parameter requirements, sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in context with its sibling.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'role' (must be full name, gives examples) and implies 'company_name' as the company. This provides significant guidance beyond the raw schema, though company_name is not explicitly described.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find the company's specific level names versus the industry Standard ladder.' It uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'level mapping', distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_recent_offers'.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Call this tool FIRST' and specifies that 'role must be the full name'. It implies a prerequisite relationship to other tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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