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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'Nothing is sent or stored' clarifies that no message is delivered, and it specifies the output artifacts (300-char note plus a longer email).

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 purpose, then the example, then output detail; every sentence adds something. Slight redundancy between the title line, the 'Job Spotter' opener, and the restatement of the purpose keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return values (two note variants with a character limit). All eight parameters are covered by the schema, and only two are required. It is nearly complete; it omits any mention of differing quality or edge behavior but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 eight parameters, establishing a 3 baseline. The description adds marginal meaning by tying how_you_know and why_fit to the generated content ('built from how they know each other and why the job fits') and implying the ask parameter via 'referral or a short chat', but not enough to exceed baseline.

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: it produces a referral note in two forms (a LinkedIn connection note under 300 characters and a longer email version). The trigger example ('write to Amy at Monzo asking for a referral') makes the purpose concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like jobspotter_networking_plan or jobspotter_apply_kit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides a clear usage context via the quoted example ('write to Amy at Monzo asking for a referral'), which is exactly the situation that selects this tool. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tools, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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