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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does: empty results are ambiguous (genuinely no team vs. unrecognized posting id), and the call costs 10 credits. This is useful behavioral context that the annotations do not convey.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the crucial empty-result caveat and credit cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential non-obvious facts: result ambiguity, credit cost, and where the posting id comes from. The output schema handles return-value shape, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already well documented: opportunityEntityId explains the exact source and JSON path, while start is described as a pagination offset. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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, 'Hiring-team member profiles for a posting,' which tells an agent exactly what is returned. This is distinct from sibling tools like jobs_details_v2 or jobs_similar, which target different resources. The tool name and title reinforce the purpose without adding ambiguity.

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 the use case: retrieve the hiring team for a specific job posting. The schema also tells the agent where to get the required opportunityEntityId. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving alternative selection mostly to inference.

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