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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states one quota unit is consumed, that it runs asynchronously with results visible via get_vacancy_detail 'usually within 10 seconds,' that a passed description replaces any teaser before analysis, and enumerates every error code (description_required, posting_too_short, already_processing, limit_exceeded, not_found) with what each implies for spend.

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 purpose and scope, then usage conditions, quota, async behavior, and error codes in one dense block. It's long but every clause carries operational information; minimal waste, though the error enumeration makes it heavy.

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, return-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: quota cost, async result retrieval, teaser-replacement behavior, and the full set of failure modes. Complete for a write tool of this complexity.

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?

Explains the meaning and triggering conditions for 'description' (needed when has_description is false or analyze_radar_match returned needs_full_posting; pasted word-for-word; saved over the teaser) and clarifies vacancy_id refers to a tracked vacancy. Adds real value even though the schema also carries field descriptions.

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 ('Analyze a vacancy already in the user's tracker (by vacancy_id) against their active resume') and pins down the scope with 'in place — no duplicate is created.' This clearly separates it from a new-vacancy analysis path without needing to name the sibling.

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?

Gives explicit applicability: a never-analyzed vacancy ('none'), one whose analysis failed, or a re-run. It also flags quota consumption and async behavior. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. analyze_vacancy) for the not-tracked case, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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