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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated traits: the operation is 'unbilled', gated by an allowlist, and functions as a 'preview' rather than a real submission — meaningful context for an agent deciding whether cost or side effects apply.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The tradeoff is that the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, since the fragments ('discovery reports blueprint maintenance') read as jargon rather than plain intent.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema discovery tool this is roughly adequate, but the cryptic 'one-URL Job' and 'blueprint maintenance' phrasing leaves the agent unsure what a blueprint is or how this relates to 'discover' and 'get_job' in the same family.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parametric content to add and none is needed.

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 resource ('one-URL Job contracts and limits') but the terminology mismatches the tool name ('blueprints' vs 'contracts'), leaving the agent to guess whether these are the same thing. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling 'discover', whose name suggests a very similar function.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus siblings like 'discover', 'get_job', or 'submit_job'. The 'allowlisted, unbilled scraping preview' fragment hints at context but never states the condition or timing for using this tool.

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