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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the rendering as interactive cards, the 1-10 bound, and that each card links out to the application page — but says nothing about ordering, error behavior for invalid/missing IDs, or what happens for non-public roles.

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?

Two tight sentences with the cardinality and output form front-loaded; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 right thing by describing the return as linked interactive cards. It is close to sufficient for a simple single-argument display tool, with only edge-case behavior left unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it only identifies the parameter as job IDs and restates the 1-10 cardinality already encoded in minItems/maxItems. It does not explain what happens to unknown or duplicate IDs.

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 (Display) and resource (one to ten public HireHouse roles by job ID) along with the output form (interactive job cards). It is distinguishable from get_job and compare_jobs by the card rendering, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'by job ID' implies the caller must already hold job IDs (i.e., use search_jobs first), which is a useful implicit condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer get_job or compare_jobs instead.

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