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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: deduplication across boards, freshness flooring, rejection of plain role names for `function`, and rejection of oversized `limit` pages. These are exactly the kind of edge cases an agent needs to know and are not inferable 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by two targeted parameter clarifications. It is efficient and to the point, though it could be slightly more explicit about the return format.

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 and only a single required parameter, the description covers the essential behavior (what is returned, key parameter restrictions) but omits details on optional filters like `country` and the idempotency key's purpose. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully self-sufficient for all parameters.

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 only 17% (only plane_api_key has a description, and it's about deprecation). The description compensates for two key parameters: `function` (must be a function id, not a role name) and `limit` (bounded, rejected if too large). However, it says nothing about `country`, `company_id`, or `idempotency_key`, leaving those to the agent's inference.

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 clear resource ('active reqs') and adds scoping traits ('deduped across boards', 'ATS/board-only', 'freshness-floored') that distinguish it from sibling tools like search_jobs or get_role. The verb is implied by the name, but the description makes the exact output and filtering behavior concrete.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints that `function` must come from prior results, implying a sequential workflow, but it never names sibling tools or states exclusions, so an agent gets little help deciding between get_open_reqs and other company-related tools.

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