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

Annotations indicate non-idempotent write operations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: it discloses that the tool is 'Free' (cost behavior) and summarizes the return value structure ('Returns a JD object with 'id' and stored content') despite the existence of an output schema. It does not disclose side effects of multiple invocations.

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?

Five sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose ('Create a job description...'), followed by return values, downstream usage, prerequisites, and cost. Every sentence provides distinct, actionable information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides complete contextual coverage: it explains the return object, prerequisites, cost model, and integration with sibling tools. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke this 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 coverage is 67% (title lacks description). The description compensates effectively for context_id by specifying exact sibling tools to obtain it (atlas_create_context or atlas_list_contexts), adding crucial semantic meaning. However, it fails to clarify the 'title' parameter, which is undocumented in both schema and description, though 'content' is adequately covered by the schema's 'Full JD text'.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a job description') and resource within a specific domain ('hiring context'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing downstream consumers of its output (atlas_fit_match, atlas_fit_rank, etc.), clarifying its role in the workflow.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('Requires context_id from atlas_create_context or atlas_list_contexts') and clear guidance on how to use the output ('Use JD content as jd_text in...'). It names specific sibling tools for both input sourcing and output consumption, creating a clear decision tree for the agent.

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