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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description is free to add the useful parts: it enumerates what comes back (must-haves, nice-to-haves, level signals, mirror terms, years, location, process/referral facts) and adds an honest caveat that the checklist is general recruiter practice and 'no guarantee of a result'. That caveat is genuine behavioral disclosure not present in annotations or 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-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then examples, then return shape, then the alternative-tool routing. It is a single dense paragraph, but every clause carries information; it could be broken into bullets for scanability, which is the only real cost.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, yet it still summarizes them and adds the tailoring-checklist disclaimer. Combined with the explicit sibling routing and the source of the job argument, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the description's parameter guidance ('company and job', 'the applyUrl from find_company_jobs, or the title') repeats the two schema descriptions almost verbatim. It adds no format, validation, or fallback semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the facts of one job') plus a second deliverable ('a checklist for tailoring a resume to it'), and explicitly separates itself from find_company_jobs (finding) and profile_keyword_check (comparing your own text). An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Provides concrete example questions that map to the tool, tells the agent where to source the 'job' argument (applyUrl from find_company_jobs), and names the sibling to use instead when the goal is comparing the user's profile ('use profile_keyword_check'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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