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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the extraction scope (structured job description, company name, requirements, responsibilities) and the supported platforms, which helps the agent understand what the tool will do beyond the annotations.

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Scrape and extract'), specifies the output fields, and lists supported sources. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, a clear output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention error cases (e.g., unsupported URL or inaccessible page), but this is not critical given the simplicity of the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'url' parameter. The description adds context by specifying the type of URL (job posting) and the supported sources, which is useful for the agent to know what input is expected.

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 clearly states the tool's function: scraping and extracting structured job data from a job posting URL. It lists the specific data fields (job description, company name, requirements, responsibilities) and names the supported sources (LinkedIn, Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Wuzzuf, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like civify_parse_cv or civify_score_ats.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when you have a job posting URL and need structured job data. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the supported sources list and the clear resource (job URL) provide sufficient context for an agent to select it over siblings.

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