careers_resources

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: external links are never fetched, tree results are capped at 60 folders, and detail requires an item_id. These are non-obvious constraints that materially affect how an agent invokes the tool and interprets results. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short sentences deliver the essential scope, safety behavior, parameter requirement, sibling routing, and a hard limit. Every sentence earns its place and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 the output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers the important exceptions: external links, tree cap, detail preconditioning, and download routing. It is nearly complete, though it could have briefly noted how to narrow tree results using query or folder_id.

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%, but the schema itself uses clear property names, titles, enums, and defaults. The description adds meaning for item_id (detail requirement) and folder_id/tree cap, but it does not explain the query/offset/limit pagination semantics or how exactly to narrow large tree results beyond 'must be narrowed.' This is adequate but leaves some param behavior to inference.

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 names specific actions (browse/search/traverse) and a clear resource (career resources / folder tree), and it distinguishes itself from the download sibling by routing file downloads to careers_download. It is more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other career-related browse tools like careers_materials.

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 gives useful context: detail views require item_id, file downloads belong in careers_download, and tree results are capped at 60 folders requiring narrowing. It does not explicitly list when to prefer this tool over sibling resource tools, but the download routing and tree limitation provide practical selection guidance.

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