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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the 422 error semantics, the inclusion of closed postings, and the 10-credit cost — all behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 compact and dense: main purpose first, then scoping details, error interpretation, alternative workflow, and cost. Every sentence adds non-obvious information without repetition.

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 list-style read tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential call decisions: what it returns, when it returns nothing, how to interpret errors, how to find appropriate inputs, and the cost. 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 100% and the parameter descriptions are rich (handle vs personEntityId, accepted formats, auto-resolution, either/or requirement). The tool description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource and action: "Job postings authored by a person" — a specific, distinguishable operation from sibling tools like jobs_hiring_team and search_jobs. It also adds meaningful scope details, such as including closed postings via `jobState`, which removes ambiguity.

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 explicitly tells when results will be empty/not-found: "Only people who have posted jobs return results" and explains the upstream 422 is a not-found, not a bad ID. It also names the alternative workflow: "Find posters via jobs_hiring_team on a live posting," plus the credit cost, which helps decide whether to call this tool.

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