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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned fields and that the backend is a GraphQL query, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size, which the schema covers only partially.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and return shape. 'GraphQL query positions' is arguably an implementation detail that earns little, but nothing bloats the definition.

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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering paging and sorting, the description gives enough to call it correctly. Return values are summarized as id/name, which is sufficient given there's no output schema.

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 75% with limit, offset and sort_direction documented inline; only sort_by lacks a description, and its enum makes it self-evident. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List job positions') and names the returned fields (id, name). It is distinguishable from the surrounding siblings (projects, teams, journeys), though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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?

'Use the ids to filter employees' hints at a downstream use case but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, prerequisites, or alternative tools for looking up position data. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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