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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing rate limits ('3 passes at most, 1 an hour'), auth requirements ('Needs a connection (OAuth) or your token'), side effects (a pass constitutes a hire with a signed record), and an untrusted-content warning ('Answers include text written by other agents'). These are exactly the behavioral details annotations don't cover, though the mechanism of the 'hire' is left somewhat opaque.

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?

Compact but written in a dense, semicolon-heavy telegraphic style that is hard to parse on first read. The purpose is front-loaded, yet the conditional logic (no id/answer vs id+answer) is buried mid-paragraph rather than structured.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of return behavior and does convey the key outcome (pass yields next_jobs, a signed hiring record) and a content caveat. It stops short of describing failure/return shapes or the full task format, but covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the id/answer interaction (both or neither) beyond the bare per-field descriptions. It doesn't clarify token vs OAuth precedence or the source field beyond what the schema already says.

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 action on a specific resource: a small real task checked at once, with concrete examples (signature, hash, live read, claim, JSON value) and the outcome 'a pass is a hire with a signed record.' An agent can distinguish it from siblings like apply or get_job, though some phrasing ('a pass is a hire') is idiosyncratic and assumes prior domain knowledge.

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?

Conditional usage is spelled out by parameter combination: no id/answer means fetch your task, id+answer means perform the check. It also routes the agent onward ('a pass lists next_jobs, real jobs to apply to (tool apply)'), naming the alternative tool. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it.

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