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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing asynchronous processing, source-support detection during refinement, and the side-effect boundary ('adds to the shared index, not to Following'). It does not say what happens when the URL is unsupported or the submission fails, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its input constraint, followed by behavior, scope, and next step. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description correctly routes the agent to companies.submissions.get for status. Missing is any note on failure/unsupported-source outcomes, which matters for an open-world async submission.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does add real constraints for careers_url (public, HTTPS, user-supplied or confirmed) but says nothing about company_name beyond it being implied by 'missing company'. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ('Submit a missing company') and pins the required input ('public HTTPS careers URL'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings: it explains this writes to the shared index rather than Following, and contrasts with companies.submissions.get.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: the company is missing, and the URL must be supplied or confirmed by the user. The description names the follow-up alternative (companies.submissions.get for progress) and the separate follow path, so an agent knows both what to call next and what not to conflate with this call.

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