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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-idempotency. Description adds critical cost information ('8 credits'), return value structure ('task_id and analysis_id'), and specific polling parameters ('result_type=fit_rank'), providing essential operational context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Efficiently structured with zero waste: cost and action front-loaded, followed by return values, polling workflow, prerequisites, and alternative tool. Every clause provides actionable information for an agent orchestrating the async workflow.

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?

Comprehensive despite no output schema. Description compensates by detailing return values (task_id, analysis_id) and complete next-step instructions for result retrieval. Credit cost and prerequisite data sources are explicitly documented, satisfying requirements for this async initiation tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds valuable sourcing context beyond raw schema, specifying that context_id comes from atlas_list_contexts, candidate_ids from atlas_list_candidates (reinforcing minimum 2), and jd_text can be from atlas_list_jds or raw 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?

States specific action ('Start an async rank'), target resource ('multiple candidates against a job description'), and scope. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool atlas_start_jd_fit_batch by clarifying this is for ranking while the alternative is for 'async batch processing with more detail'.

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_list_contexts...'), workflow instructions ('Poll with careerproof_task_status, then fetch result with careerproof_task_result'), and clear alternative recommendation ('use atlas_start_jd_fit_batch instead').

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