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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the demo-mode limitation as extra behavioral context, but it doesn't clarify what happens for non-sample titles or what the aggregated output looks like.

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 is just two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before the demo-mode note. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description would benefit from explaining what 'skill signals' means and how demo mode affects valid inputs. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, but the return semantics and demo-mode behavior are underspecified.

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%, and the title parameter already includes an example. The description mostly restates 'role title' and adds the demo-mode caveat without enriching parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action ('Return aggregated skill signals') and resource ('for a role title'), which is clear and informative. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely related siblings like jobs_related_skills or jobs_skill_graph, so an agent cannot easily differentiate based on the description alone.

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 only usage-related detail is 'Demo mode allows selected sample job titles,' which hints at limitations but doesn't say when to use this tool versus job-related siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, exclusion, or alternative guidance.

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