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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds two non-obvious traits beyond them: results are permission-filtered ('authorised') and carry only metadata/approved fields with no secrets, contacts or original files. What it omits is pagination behavior (default page size, whether offset is honored past a cap), which matters for a list tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope stated first and the data-exclusion guarantee second; nothing is padded. The phrase 'through the existing application' is the only low-value 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 three-optional-parameter read tool with a fully specified safety annotation set, the description is adequate on purpose and access scope. It falls short on pagination and on return shape, and with no output schema the description is the only place an agent could learn what a job-title record contains.

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 0%, so limit, query and offset are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description says nothing about any of them — not what 'query' matches on (title text only? department?), not the 1-100 limit ceiling or the default of 50, and not that offset caps at 25000.

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 authorised job titles'), so an agent knows this is a read-list over job title records rather than a mutation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_job_title (singular), leaving the list-versus-single lookup choice to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than get_job_title, list_employees, or list_locations, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'Through the existing application' is an implementation remark, not usage guidance.

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