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). The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the response includes dated evidence and coverage warnings, and employer-supplied text must be treated as untrusted rather than as instructions. That prompt-injection warning is high-value and not derivable from 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and input, closing with the highest-stakes safety caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-structure detail is not required, and the description already flags what the response contains (dated evidence, coverage warnings). Combined with the untrusted-content caveat, the definition is sufficient for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around id provenance across sibling types.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing beyond a type. The description compensates by explaining that the id is a 'search id' — the key provenance detail an agent needs to supply a valid value — though it doesn't state the id format or whether job and company ids are interchangeable.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a company or job document') and qualifies the input source ('from a search id'). It distinguishes itself from search/search_jobs by being the retrieval step keyed on a search result id, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling produces that id.

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 phrase 'from a search id' implies this tool is used after a search call, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the nine siblings, so usage must be inferred.

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