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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely useful context: reports are about data rather than people and 'a person at VeritaHire reads every one', signaling human review and that duplicate submissions are not deduplicated. It still does not describe what happens after submission (confirmation, response, tracking).

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 purpose, then the kind enumeration, then the job_id/search disambiguation and the human-review note. Efficient, though the long kind list is dense and could be tightened.

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 write tool with no output schema and a nested search object, the description covers what is reportable, how job_id and search disambiguate, and that a human reviews submissions. Missing only post-submission behavior such as return value or whether follow-up is expected.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates by explaining the two least obvious parameters: job_id identifies one job and search holds the search arguments for a results problem. The kind values are implicitly mapped to problem categories in prose, though detail is left to the schema.

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 ('Records a problem with VeritaHire data') and enumerates the concrete problem categories, so an agent knows exactly what is reportable. It does not contrast itself with the closest sibling (is_job_still_open), which an agent might otherwise reach for first.

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 enumerated kinds give clear context for when this tool applies (job_closed, wrong_location, wrong_pay, irrelevant_results, missing_jobs, duplicate), and the job_id/search sentence routes each scenario to the right input. No when-not-to-use or explicit alternative (e.g. is_job_still_open for a single verification) is given.

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