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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context: it returns 404 for draft, archived, or internal jobs, and specifies the fields included. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe other behaviors like response structure or pagination.

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, tightly worded sentence that leads with the core action and immediately conveys the key differentiator (public) and the edge-case behavior (404). There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 simple get tool with two clear parameter names, the description captures the main behavioral nuance (404 for non-public) and the included fields. However, the lack of any parameter guidance and no mention of the response shape leaves a notable gap, even though the tool is simple and the annotations cover safety.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (company_slug or id) at all. Since the description is the only source of guidance for parameters, its complete omission is a significant gap. The schema only gives types, so the agent has to infer the meaning from the names.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('public job'), and explicitly names the returned fields (salary, education, experience levels). It also distinguishes itself from sibling hires_get_job by adding the 'public' qualifier and the 404 behavior for non-public jobs, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies this is for public jobs but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like hires_get_job or hires_list_career_jobs. It lacks a clear 'when not to use' or a pointer to sibling tools, so the agent must infer the distinction from the term 'public'.

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