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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read; the description goes further by disclosing the return shape (ordered stages) and the inter-tool id flow. It adds no auth/rate-limit context, but for a read-only fetch the added return-content detail is meaningful value beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, then the id chain, then the underlying endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (ordered stages with id, name, group, category). It also names the exact API endpoint, making it complete for a single-param fetch tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that pipeline_template_id is sourced from list_offers/get_offer, enriching the otherwise terse schema description 'The pipeline template id.'

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 ('Fetch a pipeline template with its ordered stages') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, group, category). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining where the id comes from and which tool consumes the stage ids.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: the pipeline_template_id originates from recruitee_list_offers / recruitee_get_offer, and the stage ids feed recruitee_move_candidate_stage. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the dependency chain is well articulated.

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