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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: partial patching, real-source correction constraints, and the side effect that setting end_client removes the posting from the due list.

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 description is short and front-loads the core semantics of patching a posting. "Effects: posting updated" is somewhat tautological, and the JH-1/JH-5 references are cryptic without context, but there is little wasted text.

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 14-parameter partial-update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential model: patch semantics, correction constraints, and end_client side effects. It still leaves some parameter semantics and validation expectations to the schema, but the annotations and schema carry enough of the remaining burden.

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 71%, so the schema documents most parameters but leaves title, location, work_mode, and employment_type undescribed. The description adds emphasis on end_client and its due-list effect, but does not compensate for the remaining schema gaps across 14 parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Patch a posting," and immediately clarifies partial-update behavior with "Only the fields you pass change." This distinguishes it from hunt_add_posting and hunt_get_posting without needing to name them.

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 usage context: corrections must come from real sources only (JH-1), and setting the end client late is explicitly described as common and beneficial. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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