careers_profile

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by explicitly ruling out profile edits and new interview reports. It also clarifies the scope of interview data, distinguishing personal recorded history from a shared question bank. No contradiction exists with the annotations.

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 description is three short sentences with no filler. The primary action and target resource are front-loaded, and the follow-up sentences each add a distinct limitation or clarification that earns their 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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional enum parameter, no required arguments, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description fully covers what the tool can access and what it cannot do, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The schema provides a single section parameter with an enum, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the values correspond to the user's own profile, education, and recorded interview history. It does not explicitly describe 'past-education', but the enum labels are largely self-explanatory and the description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resources: your own career profile, education, and recorded interview history. It further distinguishes the tool by clarifying that interviews are not a shared question bank, which separates it from a generic interview database tool.

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 indicates when to use the tool: when the agent needs to read the user's own career profile, education, or recorded interview history. It also provides when-not guidance by stating that profile edits and new interview reports are not supported, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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