Get Experience

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only retrieval, lists output content, and notes the optional filtering behavior. It doesn't mention edge cases like missing experience or unknown company names, but this is adequate for a simple getter.

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 concise, well-structured sentences with no filler. The key action and return fields are front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated efficiently.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is returned, from whom, and how filtering works. It could go slightly further by describing the response shape or ordering, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'company' parameter thoroughly, including case-insensitive partial match behavior. The description only restates the optional filtering concept without adding significant new meaning.

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 'Returns' with a clear resource ('Daksh's work history') and enumerates the exact fields included: company, title, dates, summary, and achievements. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_profile and list_projects.

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 clearly states that the tool returns work history and optionally filters to a single company, giving the agent a solid sense of when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or mention when not to use it, but the domain is obvious enough.

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