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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds genuinely new behavior: 'Only what the ad states is filled in' (partial extraction from a pasted/scraped ad) and 'The draft is private until you post it' (staged visibility). Both are traits the annotations cannot 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each adds something (input modes, extraction scope, visibility). No padding, though it could tighten by naming the alternative explicitly.

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?

Purpose and behavior are well covered, and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a 13-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the near-total silence on per-parameter meaning leaves an agent guessing about required context, currency format, and the confirm flag.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It loosely maps to title, description, ad_text, and ad_url, but leaves years, skills, location, salary_min/max, location_type, employment_type, salary_currency, and especially the unexplained 'confirm' flag entirely 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+resource ('Saves a new role as a draft') and the 'draft...until you post it' framing implicitly separates it from post_role. It does not name the sibling outright, so an agent still has to infer that the draft/post distinction is the divider, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

It lists three invocation modes ('Give a title and details, paste a job ad, or pass a link to one'), which tells the agent how content can be supplied, but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and never mentions when to prefer post_role or list_roles. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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