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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: the data source, the fact that each match reports vendor confirmation, an evidence link, and the sync direction — return-shape information that matters because no output schema exists.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The middle sentence ('With a tool given as well, it checks that one pair') is slightly clunky in construction, but every sentence carries distinct 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 a 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both modes, data source and per-match return fields. Pagination and category semantics are left to the schema descriptions, which is acceptable given their 83% coverage, though a brief note on result paging would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 already 83%, but the description adds the key semantic the schema cannot express: the interaction between 'ats' alone (list mode) and 'ats' plus 'tool' (single-pair check). That dual-mode behavior is the most important thing an agent must understand about this parameter set.

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 names the exact resource (ATS compatibility data for Bullhorn, Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, JobAdder, etc.) and discloses both operating modes: list tools for an ATS, or check one ATS+tool pair. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like search_tools or compare_tools purely from the text.

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 clearly implies when the optional 'tool' parameter triggers the pair-check mode, and mentions that the category list comes from workinsiders_list_categories. However, it names no alternative sibling tool and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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