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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'Deterministic; nothing stored' tells the agent results are reproducible and the post text is not persisted, which matters for pasting sensitive drafts. It could go further on what the fix list contains beyond examples.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence: the action ('paste any job post and get a fix list') leads, followed by the itemized checks and a compact behavioral clause. The enumeration is informative rather than filler, though it is slightly dense.

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 by describing a 'fix list' with representative entries. Parameters are fully schema-documented and annotations cover safety. Minor gap: no detail on fix-list format or ordering.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description implies the role of 'locations' via 'pay range where required' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('lint/check a job post') and enumerates the exact defect classes it detects (pay-range, citizenship restrictions, coded language, salary-history asks, must-have overload). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like write_job_description or check_pay_transparency, which write or narrowly check pay rather than lint the whole post.

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 phrasing 'Paste any engineering job post' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to the adjacent check_pay_transparency and write_job_description tools. The agent must infer routing from the stated scope alone.

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