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

Beyond annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), it discloses that the run is asynchronous, throttled to one per position per hour, and refused under four enumerated conditions with the reason returned. It stops short of saying what happens to the prior scores (overwritten or retained) and how completion is observed, which matters for a destructiveHint=true tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the motivation, then the operational constraints. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the async nature, rate limit, and refusal reasons — the main risks. The remaining gap is the absence of a pointer to the status-checking sibling and to how prior scores are affected.

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's schema description already defines it as the position whose candidates should be re-scored. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source guidance beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Re-score the candidates of a job position against its current evaluation criteria.' It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_job_score_recalculation_state and get_candidates_with_scores, since it describes an action on a whole position rather than a retrieval.

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 trigger condition — run it after a criteria change, because all existing pipeline scores otherwise reflect the previous criteria. It does not name the natural companion tool get_job_score_recalculation_state for checking run status, which would have made the routing guidance explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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