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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it does not post or store anything, it flags disqualifying patterns (missing pay, over-long must-haves, slang, age/gender-coded wording, 'native speaker'), and it compares pay against current adverts. That is real disclosure beyond the annotations, though it does not describe output format or limits.

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, then scope, then behavior, then the no-storage disclaimer. The quoted example prompts are slightly verbose but serve a routing purpose, so most sentences earn their place.

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 15-parameter, single-required-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it builds, what it flags, and how pay is benchmarked, plus the no-persistence guarantee. Only the return shape and any input validation expectations remain unstated.

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% across all 15 parameters, so the schema already carries per-field meaning. The description only paraphrases a subset (title, duties, must-haves, pay) without adding format or syntax guidance beyond the schema, which is the 3 baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('write a job advert') plus the secondary function ('check the pay'), and the example prompts make the employer-facing scope unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_salary or employer_reply_rate.

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 'For employers:' framing and two quoted example intents ('help me write an advert for a care assistant', 'is £12 an hour enough?') tell the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It does not, however, name an alternative such as check_salary for the pay-only case, so the routing boundary 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.