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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is saved' while adding context annotations cannot carry: the derivation rules (titles, country, languages, currency, summed skill years), the warning that living in a country is not a work permit, and the explicit list of fields never proposed (salary, notice period, relocation). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 core action and the save-workflow constraint, and every sentence earns its place. The years-per-skill parenthetical is dense but conveys a real derivation rule, so it is defensible; slightly long overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the derivation logic, the confirmation workflow, and non-proposed fields. The only gap is any mention of the required watcherId input, which is a minor omission given the surrounding completeness.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it never mentions watcherId at all — the single required parameter — nor adds meaning to workspaceId. The explanation given is about proposed output fields, not input parameters, so the required input remains semantically undocumented.

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 (propose), resource (job watcher's application profile), and the source data (the person's LinkedIn profile and resume), then enumerates exactly what gets proposed. An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like campaignstack_edit_job_watcher or campaignstack_get_job_watchers 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?

Explicitly sequences the workflow: call this before filling a profile, read the proposal back, and save only confirmed values via campaignstack_edit_job_watcher (op update). It names the follow-up tool and the conditions that select it, leaving nothing to inference.

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