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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'queue' hints at a non-blocking, side-effectful operation without destruction. The description adds the nuance of queuing (not immediate publishing), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not clarify what happens on failure or whether publication is asynchronous, which could matter to an agent.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Queue the job') and the target ('given boards'). Given the tool's simplicity, this is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 params and no output schema. The description covers the core action and parameters but misses some context: it does not mention that the boards parameter is optional (schema shows it's not required, but required fields list only 'id'), nor does it explain what 'queue' implies (e.g., processing time, confirmation). It also doesn't state whether the tool requires the job to be in a certain status (e.g., published) for the operation to succeed. For an agent, this is adequate but leaves room for misinterpretation.

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%, with 'id' described as 'Job id or alias' and 'boards' as an example list. The description adds minimal semantics: it implies the 'id' refers to a job and 'boards' are the targets. It does not explain how boards are specified (e.g., exact strings, availability) beyond the schema, so the description does not significantly augment the 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?

The description 'Queue the job for publication on the given boards' clearly states the action (queue for publication) and resource (job boards). It distinguishes itself from similar tools like hires_batch_publish_to_boards (batch variant) and hires_remove_from_job_board (opposite action), though it does not explicitly 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?

The description implies a specific scenario: publishing a single job to specified boards. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus the batch variant (hires_batch_publish_to_boards) or how it differs from other board-related tools (e.g., hires_batch_job_boards). The context of 'queue' suggests asynchronous behavior, but no guidance is provided on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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