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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the return payload (document text, best-effort warnings with a wage-table date, workspace Compensation/Offer terms texts, and an ATS offer object once candidate/start/expiry are set), the 'not legal advice' caveat, and that remote use transmits values to rolefig with nothing stored — consistent with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then packs returns, constraints, and the remote-storage note economically. The middle clause is dense and reads as a run-on, but essentially every sentence carries actionable information for a schema-heavy tool.

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 a nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value picture and the safety/legal caveats. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., prerequisites for classification by plan type are left to the schema).

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?

Top-level coverage is effectively absent per the signal, but the description compensates by mapping the three pay-plan variants and the placeholder mechanism for ownContract. However, it adds little on today, classification, or the trigger conditions for candidate/startDate/offerExpiresAt beyond the schema's own nested descriptions.

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 and resource (fill rolefig's California starter offer letter and pay plan) and enumerates the three supported plan types (commission, salary with bonus, hourly) plus the own-contract placeholder mode. An agent immediately knows this produces an offer/pay document, which none of the sibling job-search tools do.

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?

Gives a clear operating rule ('Use only confirmed values and never invent terms') and distinguishes the two modes (rolefig template vs. the employer's own contract via {{placeholders}}). It doesn't frame when to prefer this over any sibling tool, but the context is unambiguous.

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