List Career Points

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral value on top: default and max page size, offset-based paging, sort order, and which fields are deliberately omitted from each row. It does not mention row-count/total behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and default paging come first, and the sibling pointer closes it out. Some clauses are densely packed (field list plus omitted-field parenthetical), which costs a little readability.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned row fields and flags what is omitted, and it covers filtering, ordering and pagination. What is missing is minor: no statement of total result count or behavior when `offset` runs past the end.

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 load and does so well: it supplies the enum values for `state` (draft|approved|retired) that the schema lacks, plus `limit` default 50 / max 100 and the paging meaning of `offset`. The only gap is that the column list ('id, entity_id/...') is output-oriented rather than parameter detail.

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 verb and resource ('List Career KB points across all entities'), plus the ordering ('oldest first') and the optional filter axis. An agent can distinguish it from kb_list_entities and kb_get_entity without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the unfiltered case (returns first `limit` points) and the paging mechanism (offset), and explicitly redirects to kb_get_entity for per-use port history and merge provenance. It gives clear context but does not state when this should be preferred over the other list-type siblings.

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