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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavior beyond them: generation is constrained to facts in the brief (no invented benefits or salary), and there is a graceful degradation path to a structured template when AI is unavailable. It also discloses that a score is produced, though it omits latency or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the caveats follow in a parenthetical. It is slightly run-on with three clauses stacked, but every clause carries information.

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 12-parameter tool with only one required field and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back, since the draft-plus-score result shape is only hinted at. The generation constraints are well covered, but the return contract is essentially undocumented.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds one meaningful constraint, that only facts supplied in the brief are used, implying omitted fields are not fabricated, but it gives no per-parameter meaning for salary fields, arrays like mustHaves, or the lone required field role.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: generates a job post draft from a brief, and additionally scores it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like post_job or edit_job, so the agent must infer that this is the pre-publication drafting step rather than a publishing or editing action.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "draft" suggests this precedes post_job and produces something for review_job_post, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent can guess the workflow position but receives no routing instruction.

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