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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the three possible response states and the recommended handling of disambiguation (ask the user or pick using context) — important since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative instruction and the outcome states, and it's a reasonable length for a 9-parameter resolver. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant ("turn ... into a GWIX ID" vs "Resolve a plain-language name to a GWIX ID"), which keeps it from a 5.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, sequencing, and return states including disambiguation handling. Minor gaps remain — it doesn't map each type enum value to its required parameter combination, but the agent has enough to call it 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 89%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation; the description still adds meaning by clustering inputs into the categories each type expects (company/ticker, city/postcode/metro/state/country, job family, industry via company). It stops short of stating which fields are required per type or how q interacts with the typed fields.

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 a specific verb (resolve/turn X into) and a specific resource (GWIX ID), and names the downstream consumers get_pay and get_postings. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like describe_id or list_dimensions without opening a schema.

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?

"Use first" and "before asking for statistics" give clear sequencing guidance, and the three outcome branches (matched / needs_disambiguation / no_match) tell the agent how to proceed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it (e.g., when you already have an ID and want describe_id), so it stops short of a 5.

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