get_experience

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description does add one non-obvious behavior: lookup is a case-insensitive partial match on company or position name, not just an exact id. It says nothing about what happens on ambiguous or zero matches, though the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

The lead sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, and the parameter block is short and example-driven. The raw 'Args:' formatting is slightly schema-like, but it does not bloat the description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is described in detail. What is missing is fail-mode behavior for ambiguous or missing matches, which matters for a fuzzy name lookup. Otherwise the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it defines the value as an id from list_experience, gives concrete examples ('0', 'Tenna', 'HP', 'Director'), and specifies case-insensitive partial matching against company or position. The only gap is whether a partial match spanning multiple roles is an error or a multi-result return, which the 'one or more roles' phrasing only hints at.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full details for one or more roles: highlights, accomplishments, and tech stack.' The 'full details' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_experience, and the parameter note naming list_experience reinforces that pairing. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting the two, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 clear from the parameter guidance: an id comes from list_experience, so the agent knows to enumerate first and then drill down. It also shows that a name fragment is acceptable as an alternative lookup path. There are no explicit when-not conditions or statements about ambiguity, which keeps it from a 5.

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