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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds useful context by disclosing that descriptions and requirements are bounded to keep responses manageable, a behavioral trait not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 front-load the action, resource, and cardinality, then add the response-bounding caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, an output schema, strong read-only annotations, and a clearly scoped purpose, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The only minor gap is explicit sibling routing, but that is not essential for this simple retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents the sole parameter with type, min/max length, min/max items, and a description. The description only restates the 1-3 range and adds the 'Curaiz' brand context, so the schema remains the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 exact action ('get full details'), resource ('Curaiz job slugs'), and cardinality ('one to three'). This clearly distinguishes it from discovery-focused find_recent_jobs and location-focused get_locations.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving details when job slugs are already known. It does not explicitly route to find_recent_jobs for discovery, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the intended use.

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