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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful output context by listing the profile categories and a talent verdict. It does not disclose potential response variability, freshness, or whether certain input combinations produce partial data.

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?

One tight sentence with the main promise front-loaded, a semicolon-separated list of components, and a clear value statement. No fluff, no redundancy.

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 an aggregate tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description does not clarify how to scope a call, whether at least one parameter is required, or what the response structure looks like. The component list helps but is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly maps to inputs through phrases like "skill intel" and "location compete." It never explains parameter format, optionality, requiredness, or how skill/title/location combine. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not provide the needed additional meaning.

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 deliverable: "Full talent-market profile in one call" and enumerates seven components (skill intel, role intel, salary band, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the granular jobs_* siblings by positioning itself as an aggregate profile, though it never names the exact siblings it replaces.

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 "Replaces ~5 separate calls" implies use it when a broad profile is needed instead of several specialized calls, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives. Given the large sibling list, an agent would need more routing detail.

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