get_career_timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them by specifying sort order and that intra-company promotions and education are folded into the result. It stops short of noting gaps or how companies with no promotions appear.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the parenthetical example doing concrete work rather than padding. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that carries the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. The only residual gap is its relationship to the experience/education siblings, which an agent would have to work out from names alone.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing filter options that the empty schema does not support.

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 resource — every title Kyle has held — with a defined ordering (most recent first) and an explicit inclusion rule (promotions within a company, plus education). That is far more informative than a name restatement, though it never names a sibling to distinguish itself from get_experience or list_experience.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'every title ... including promotions ... and education' signals this is an aggregated career view rather than a single-role lookup, which nudges an agent away from get_experience. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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