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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not present in structured fields: 'Free to call; does not consume account balance,' which matters for an agent budgeting calls.

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 tight sentences: purpose and output first, then the specificity clarification, then the cost note. No filler, and the most important information (what it returns and why) is front-loaded.

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 simple, zero-required-param read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, category semantics, and cost. Minor gaps like ordering or pagination behavior are handled by the schema's limit parameter, so nothing essential 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%, so limit and search are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List available job functions with IDs') and explains the downstream purpose (use in jobFunctionIds filters). It also distinguishes itself conceptually from the related sibling category by noting these are 'typically more specific than main responsibility areas.'

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?

Explains the context in which the output is consumed ('IDs to use in jobFunctionIds filters') and positions it relative to main responsibility areas, giving the agent a clear sense of when this list is the right one. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool to call instead.

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