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

Annotations only cover the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds what the annotations cannot: the duplicate guard runs automatically, warnings ride the result, the company is auto-created by name, and the record is created with lead status. It also states the operational constraint (never silently merge or drop) and the consequence of failure.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the action, the guard, then the sourcing rule, then the effects. Some shorthand (JH-1, JH-3, "lead") assumes internal vocabulary, and the duplicate-guard note is split awkwardly across the first and second sentences, but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: a duplicate check runs, its output appears as warnings, and a company may be created as a side effect. That is what an agent needs before calling 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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: company semantics (created if new, by name), and that end_client is the duplicate-guard key so it must be actively asked for. It does not touch compensation units or req_id formatting, but the schema already covers those.

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?

"Record a JD encountered" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately scopes it to creation plus duplicate guarding, which separates it from hunt_update_posting, hunt_evaluate_posting and hunt_check_duplicates. An agent can tell what it does and roughly where it sits in the flow.

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 gives clear context for use (facts only from the JD or real correspondence, end client required for agency postings) and warns that warnings are for a person to resolve. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of hunt_check_duplicates first or hunt_update_posting for existing records, so the sibling routing is only implied.

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