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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of results: each hit is tagged with its type and slug. It does not discuss result volume, ranking, or empty-result behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the selection heuristic, then the payoff. No filler and no repetition of schema details beyond the single required-flag note.

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 is simple (2 params, 100% schema coverage) and read-only, so the bar is modest. The description nonetheless compensates for the absent output schema by explaining that results carry type and slug tags, which is exactly the information an agent needs to act on the response.

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 documented in-schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds only the required-argument callout for searchText, which merely restates the schema's required list, and says nothing extra about how limit interacts with the result set.

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 (resolve) plus a named resource set (job families, job titles, focus tags) and the distinctive scope: searched TOGETHER in one call. That framing separates it immediately from the single-type siblings search-job-families, search-job-titles, and search-focus-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?

Gives an explicit selection condition — "use this when you're unsure whether a term ... is a job family, a specific title, or a specialization" — and contrasts it against the single-type searches via "TOGETHER in one call." It also states the downstream purpose ("feed the right one to the benchmark tools"), so the agent knows what to do with the output.

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