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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds useful state effects: a posting becomes evaluated or skipped with a reason. It also notes that skips persist and stay queryable, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 purpose and skip condition are front-loaded, and the effects line is useful. Some phrasing, such as the JH-8 reference and 'which agencies waste your time is knowledge,' is slightly internal or embellished, but the description remains compact.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no output schema, and strong schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what changes and why skip reasons matter. It could further clarify when to record an evaluation versus when to update a posting, but nothing critical 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 high at 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds semantics for skip_reason and the skip path, but does not explain fit_score, fit_notes, red_flags, or resume_version beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: recording an evaluation or a skip for a posting. It clearly distinguishes the two outcomes, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from adjacent siblings like hunt_update_posting.

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 explains the skip path clearly: a skip_reason is required, skipped postings remain queryable, and skips serve as pattern memory. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of hunt_update_posting or other pipeline tools.

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