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

Annotations already cover the mutation/open-world/non-idempotent profile, but the description adds real context beyond them: the post is public under the user's name, the company is not named, others can vote, and there is a hard rate limit of 5 per 24 hours. It omits what happens on failure or whether a submission can be edited/withdrawn.

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 contains two near-duplicate paragraphs: both restate that a request is sent to the product team, posted publicly under the user's name, that the company is not named, and the 5/day limit. The duplication wastes tokens even though the second paragraph adds the auth requirement and voting detail.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth requirements, rate limits, content restrictions and public visibility. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance against sibling tools, but for a single-purpose submission tool this is largely complete.

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 100%, including constraints on title/description and the conversation_id handling, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'write a short title and a description of the need and why (no candidate data or company names)' only restates constraints already in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 ('Send a feature request to the JobMojito product team') and distinguishes itself from siblings like report_technical_issue by naming the destination (public feature request board). An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: confirm wording with the user before submitting, keep the title short, describe the need and why. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. report_technical_issue), so it falls short of the top tier.

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