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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond them: that the payload carries cached links, relationship basis, timestamps and 'missing' checks, and that a not_available status is not evidence of closure. It still omits default section behavior and any limits on the response.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, but they lead with vague jargon ("verification includes cached links, relationship basis...") instead of the plain purpose. The most actionable line, the not_available caveat, is buried last.

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 read tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain what comes back per section and the default scope. It instead offers hints about verification metadata and a status caveat, leaving the agent under-informed about the actual return shape.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. "Selected details" only faintly gestures at the sections parameter (requirements/salary/evidence/verification), and nothing explains job_ids expects up to 10 UUIDs or what happens when sections is null.

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?

"Read selected details" signals a read operation over job records, but it never states the resource plainly (jobs by ID) or what a 'detail' section contains. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling search_jobs, so the agent must infer the lookup-vs-search split from the name alone.

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 operational guidance ("Use host search/browser to verify before acting", "not_available is not proof the employer closed the job") that shapes how the agent treats results, but offers no when-to-use rule and no routing versus search_jobs or the other siblings.

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