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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, but the description adds material context they cannot: the digest pipeline was retired on 2026-07-06, recent accounts will get nothing, and the two id/no-id return shapes differ in depth. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before calling.

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 most decisive constraint (HISTORICAL ONLY) and every sentence carries routing or return-shape information. It is dense and on the long side, but there is no filler to strip; a slightly tighter split would read better than the current run-on structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating both return shapes and their fields, and it removes ambiguity about a tool that would otherwise appear broken for most accounts. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the id parameter is already documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining the consequence of omitting id (20 lightweight summaries with listed fields) versus supplying it (full markdown body with per-job detail), which meaningfully extends the schema's 'omit to list' phrasing.

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 (archived job digests / email summaries) and immediately scopes it as HISTORICAL ONLY, naming the successor pipeline (get_feed) that replaced it. An agent can distinguish this from get_feed, get_starred_jobs, and search_jobs without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('only when the user asks about their old email summaries by name') and names three alternatives with the condition each serves. It even states the tool is effectively dead for new accounts, which is decisive routing information.

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