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 fully covered. The description adds only the scoping constraint (per job position) and says nothing about what the stage list contains, ordering, or behavior when the position has no stages.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint arrives immediately after the verb.

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?

A simple single-param read with rich annotations and no output schema; safety and idempotency needs are covered. However, with no output schema the description should hint at the shape of the returned stages (e.g., names, ordering, stage IDs usable with move_stage), which it omits.

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 100% and the single parameter jobDescriptionId is already documented as 'The job position ID'. The description restates the same scope without adding format, sourcing, or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the recruitment pipeline stages') and scopes it to a job position. It reads clearly against siblings like add_pipeline_stages and move_pipeline_stages, though it never explicitly separates itself from those write tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read-oriented verb; the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It doesn't mention related reads such as get_job_description or get_screening_config that an agent might confuse it with.

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