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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the real behavioral consequences: publication is immediate or moderated depending on settings, a double opt-in link is sent to contact, and the request is deleted if not confirmed within 48 hours. That 48-hour auto-deletion and the moderation gate are exactly the kind of non-obvious traits an agent must know before calling.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the consent precondition, then the confirmation flow. The confirmation-link sentence bundles several facts (48h, deletion, visibility, offer delivery) but each fact is distinct and none is filler.

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 13-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle from submission to confirmation and follow-up offers. The one gap is that it never says what the call returns (e.g., a job identifier), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 already 92%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value beyond it by specifying that contact must be an email address and, crucially, that a relative's address should be used if the user has none — a fallback rule absent from the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Gesuch für den Nutzer aufgeben'), so the creation role is unambiguous against read-oriented siblings like get_job or search_jobs. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with submit_offer or the other write-path siblings.

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?

A hard precondition is stated up front: 'Nur nach Bestätigung durch den Nutzer', which tells the agent not to call it on its own initiative. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for the other job-related tools.

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