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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it discloses the tool's subject matter and explicitly states it covers 'what it will not do,' i.e. its own limitations. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance or whether the answer is static documentation, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, with the high-value instruction ('call this first') placed at the end as a directive and the content scope front-loaded. No filler.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-param documentation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to invoke it. Only the skill_version parameter is unaddressed, and the schema handles that at full coverage.

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% for the single optional parameter skill_version, so the schema already explains it. The description adds nothing about this parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves no extra value.

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 a concrete resource and scope: it explains 'what the index holds, what the scores mean, what it will not do.' That is specific enough to distinguish this onboarding/explanation tool from the action siblings (fetch_jobs, search_jobs, stats). It stops short of a single crisp verb+object phrase, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance is given: 'Call this first, before any other tool.' That is an unambiguous when-to-use rule that routes the agent ahead of every sibling without needing to inspect their schemas.

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