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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: no applicant data or application submission, compensation text is authoritative, and absent numeric pay means unknown rather than zero. That is useful semantics an agent cannot derive 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?

Content is dense but front-loaded, leading with the primary read action before the sub-clauses. The clause about 'how rolefig verified it' is slightly extraneous, but overall little waste.

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 return-value burden and does so well, enumerating stated facts, verification, source/application URLs, and pay semantics. The only gap is that the required slug input is left completely unexplained.

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?

There is a single parameter (slug) with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies a regex pattern and length bounds. The description never mentions what a slug is, where it comes from, or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource: reads a company-published profile plus its current published openings. The word 'real' implicitly separates it from demo_get_company, and 'profile' vs list_published_companies distinguishes the get/list pair. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 makes clear this returns a company's profile and openings and excludes applicant data/application submission, which implies a read-only context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over demo_get_company, list_published_companies, or list_company_openings. Usage is left to inference.

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