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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it instructs to show recruiting profiles only 'when stated' and warns to 'never imply a person recruits for this specific vacancy,' shaping how results should be interpreted and presented. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and output components are front-loaded, and the behavioral warning is placed at the end without disrupting the main message. Every clause contributes meaning.

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?

The description enumerates the types of related information (contacts, profiles, sessions, events) and the warning about recruitment implication, which covers the tool's behavior. An output schema exists, so the return structure is documented separately. The only gap is the lack of explicit criteria for what counts as 'related,' but this is likely defined by the output schema, so overall completeness is strong.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single 'id' parameter. The term 'Resolve an exact job' implies id is the job identifier, and the min/max length constraints are in the schema, but no extra nuance is added (e.g., format expectations or how to obtain the id). Since the parameter is simple and self-evident, a 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('an exact job') and enumerates the composite of outputs (contacts, recruiting profiles, sessions, events). It distinguishes itself from search siblings by requiring an exact job identifier, making its purpose unambiguous without needing to inspect other tools.

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?

The description implies usage when an exact job id is on hand and combined context is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_jobs or search_people. There is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance, only an implicit condition of having an exact job, which may require an agent to infer the appropriate trigger.

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