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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description isn't responsible for conveying that this is a write operation. The description adds the 'queue' semantic, implying asynchronous enqueueing, and the batch scope, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether operation is asynchronous, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate context, earning a 3.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and objects, making it easy to parse. While the batch operation might benefit from a bit more detail, conciseness itself is well-executed, so it earns a 4 rather than 5 due to slight under-specification.

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 batch mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain what 'publication' entails, whether the operation is asynchronous, how results are returned, or any constraints (e.g., boards must exist, jobs must be active). The 'queue' hint adds some context, but the description leaves many operational details unaddressed, making it incomplete for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 100%: the 'jobs' parameter is described as 'Job ids' and 'boards' as 'e.g. indeed, linkedin'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is sufficient given the baseline for high coverage. No further elaboration is necessary.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Queue') and identifies the resource ('several jobs') and target ('given boards'). It clearly conveys a batch operation, which distinguishes it from single-publish tools. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools like hires_publish_to_job_board or hires_batch_job_boards, leaving some potential for confusion, so it falls 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hires_publish_to_job_board or hires_batch_job_boards. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, exclusions, or any context where one should prefer a different tool. The agent is left to infer the usage scenario.

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