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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering semantics, exclusion of in-flight/failed analyses, the meaning of 'total' across all matches, and the default/max limit. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape in depth, but the additions are meaningful.

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 core purpose and ordering rule, then failure-mode and filter details. Sentences are dense but each carries information; nothing is wasteful, though the run-on second sentence could be split.

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 needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still names what analyzed vacancies include (match percentage, verdict, strengths/gaps) and explains total and empty-list semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 reported as 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers the analysis_status and status filters plus limit defaults/caps, but omits the 'archived' parameter entirely, leaving one of the filters unexplained in prose. Partial compensation, so a 3.

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+resource ('List the user's tracked vacancies') and immediately pins down the scope: pinned first, then newest by analyzed_at, with which analysis states are included vs excluded. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_vacancies or get_vacancy_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?

Gives concrete selection context: vacancies with running/failed analyses are not listed, filters are tracker status and analysis_status, and an empty list is normal. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g., search_vacancies for un-tracked results), so it falls just 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.