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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value on top: it discloses that results are ready LinkedIn/Google searches, that subjects posted hiring ads publicly, and that nothing is read from LinkedIn or gathered about anyone.

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 critical information (what it returns and the no-scraping disclosure) is front-loaded, and every clause about returned artifact types earns its place. It opens by echoing the title ('Job Spotter. People worth contacting at a company.'), which is mildly redundant, and the final sentence is a long run-on list.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what gets returned (people, recruiters, hiring managers, in-role contacts, alumni, plus ready searches) and the privacy model. Combined with complete parameter documentation and annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly 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 the schema already documents all four parameters with matching examples. The description's 'Monzo about data jobs' example only restates what the schema fields already say, adding no new syntax or format detail. 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 concrete verb and resource: finding people worth contacting at a company, with example queries anchoring the intent. It is clearly distinct from generic job-search siblings, though it does not sharply separate itself from near-neighbors like jobspotter_connection_score or jobspotter_hiring_posts.

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 example prompts ("who should I contact at Monzo about data jobs?", "find the hiring manager") make the triggering situations concrete and easy to match. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, which would be needed for a 5.

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