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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely useful operational context: no email is sent by the tool, no email address is accepted, and VeritaHire only mails the address the manager types on the site. It also discloses that the first report is free. It does not describe link lifetime, failure modes, or rate limits.

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?

The action and the 'no email' clarification are front-loaded, and the planned-role fallback is placed last where it belongs. The middle enumeration of report contents (pay changes, what more applicants cost) is verbose and reads partly promotional, but each sentence still carries usable selection information.

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 an 8-parameter, 0-required tool whose result is a link, the description covers both invocation modes, the free-tier fact, and the human hand-off. What remains uncovered is minor: how the link is returned, whether it expires, and why city/state and location coexist for a posted role.

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 only 25% (pay and location only), so the description must compensate, and it does the most important part: it explains the two mutually exclusive parameter groupings (posting identity via job_url/job_id/employer/city/state versus planned-role via title + location + pay). It leaves individual params like employer and city/state uninterpreted, so it doesn't fully close 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a *link* for the hiring manager to open, and it explicitly corrects the likely misreading that this tool emails a report. The report's scope is spelled out (same-role employers within 25 miles, their pay, close speed). It does not name or contrast itself against the siblings (compare_job_posting, hiring_market, is_job_still_open), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use branches: a role already posted (pass a posting) versus a role the employer is PLANNING to post, where you pass title + location (+ pay) instead. It even covers the edge case of a posting VeritaHire does not hold. It never routes the agent away to a sibling tool, so no explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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