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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context the annotations do not: the snapshot semantics ('as at today'), the field set returned, and the four status categories. It stops short of return format, pagination behavior or rate limits.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the resource and its returned fields come first, filtering second. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back in the absence of an output schema.

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 16-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition compensates well by describing the returned attributes and the status taxonomy. The remaining gap is interaction between filters (mutual exclusivity, AND semantics) and sort/pagination defaults, which the schema only partially covers.

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 81%, so the schema already documents most inputs and the baseline is 3. The 'Filter by …' clause adds meaning by flagging which parameters act as filters, but it names only six and omits email, employee_number, job_id, updated_within_days, employment_condition_id and newest_first, leaving the impression that the listed set is exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and defines the resource in domain terms ('roles people hold, past, current and future'), plus enumerates the fields returned and the backing endpoint (GET /jobs). It implicitly separates itself from intellihr_get_job (single record) and intellihr_list_people, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Filter by person, job title, status … upcoming/recent end dates' implies the retrieval use cases, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs intellihr_get_job / intellihr_list_people, and no guidance on combining filters or when a filtered list is preferable to a direct lookup.

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