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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true); the description adds real behavior beyond that: partial-update semantics for omitted fields, asynchronous matching updates, and the authorization boundary that setting sending_mode does not permit application submission. It does not describe error/permission-failure behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Six tight sentences, front-loaded with the core partial-update semantics, and every sentence carries a distinct rule (partial update, ISO codes, pairing constraints, permission boundary, async behavior). Dense but no filler; slightly terse telegraphic style costs it the top mark.

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?

For a destructive, 19-parameter mutation the description covers the highest-risk ambiguities (what happens to omitted fields, pairing requirements, ISO code format, the sending_mode boundary) and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Gaps remain around the many unlisted optional fields, but the critical context is present.

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 only 26% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add key meaning for the riskiest fields (ISO country codes for visa, never infer authorization or residence, pairing rules for residence and salary), but many parameters (roles, urgency, languages, work_mode, top_skills, remote_reach, experience_band, include_worldwide_remote, etc.) remain undocumented in both description and schema.

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 precise verb+resource (update career fields on the member profile) and immediately pins down the semantics as a partial update: 'Update only the career fields the member explicitly supplied. Omitted fields remain unchanged.' That distinguishes it clearly from get_profile, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives conditional usage rules (supply city+country together; amount+period+currency together) and a boundary ('sending mode does not grant this client permission to submit applications'), which implicitly routes submission to apply_to_job. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over get_profile or apply_to_job, so guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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