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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context on top: 20-per-page ranking order, the next_cursor loop, profile completeness, a retry hint while the first computation is pending, and explicit negative boundaries ('Never starts an application or edits the profile'). That is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by paging mechanics and guardrails. No filler or redundancy; each clause carries operational information.

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?

Complete for a single-param read tool: an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers paging, the pending-computation edge case, and what the tool will never do. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single cursor param is self-documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds the loop semantics ('while next_cursor is not null, call again with cursor set to it') that tie the input to the output token, which is more than the schema states.

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 ('Read personalized curated jobs') plus the payload contents (reasons, missing facts, application status). The 'personalized curated' framing clearly separates it from raw-search siblings such as search_jobs or get_job without needing to name them.

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?

'Start here for recommendations' gives an explicit entry-point cue, and the pagination sentence says exactly when to call again. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. search_jobs) or stating when NOT to use this tool.

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