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

While annotations cover safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: return structure ('array of JD objects with id, title, and content') and cost ('Free'). Does not contradict 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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose, return format, workflow integration, and prerequisites/cost. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its 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?

For a simple list operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (array structure and fields), mentions cost, and provides workflow context. Given the single parameter and strong annotations, this is complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the context_id parameter including its source. The description reinforces this ('Requires context_id from...') but does not add new semantic information like format details or examples beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('job descriptions'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like atlas_list_candidates or atlas_list_contexts by specifying the scope ('for a hiring context').

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?

Explicitly identifies downstream dependencies by naming specific sibling tools ('atlas_fit_match', 'atlas_fit_rank', 'atlas_start_jd_fit_batch') where the output should be used, and clearly states the prerequisite ('Requires context_id from...').

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