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

Discloses critical cost information ('3 credits per candidate') not found in annotations. Explains async pattern requiring polling. Clarifies fallback behavior when jd_content is omitted. Aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by implying a non-idempotent creation operation that returns a new batch_id.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: sentence 1 states purpose and cost; sentence 2 return value; sentence 3 workflow; sentence 4 fallback logic; sentence 5 prerequisites. No redundant words, every sentence provides actionable guidance.

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 for an async batch operation without output schema. Explains the full lifecycle (start → poll → fetch), return value (batch_id), cost structure, and prerequisite data sources. Annotations provide safety hints (non-destructive), while description provides operational context.

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 60% (3/5 params documented). Description reinforces semantic context for context_id and candidate_ids by specifying their source functions, but fails to explain the two undocumented parameters: jd_title (unclear if metadata or functional) and use_kb_enhancement (undefined boolean). Compensates partially but leaves significant gaps.

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?

Excellent specific purpose: 'Start a batch JD-FIT analysis: match multiple candidates against a job description' includes specific verb (Start/match), resource (JD-FIT analysis), and scope (batch/multiple). Distinguishes from single-candidate siblings (atlas_start_fit_match) by emphasizing 'batch' and 'multiple candidates'.

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 workflow: poll with atlas_get_jd_fit_batch_status until complete, then fetch with atlas_get_jd_fit_results. States prerequisites ('Requires context_id from atlas_list_contexts'). Clarifies fallback behavior ('If jd_content is omitted, uses the context's active JD') and references specific sibling tools for the full lifecycle.

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