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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the ordered stage structure and field set returned, plus the integration linkage to other tools. It does not mention auth or pagination, but for a read-only lookup it adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 purpose and return shape, followed by the workflow linkage and the raw API endpoint. Zero filler; each sentence carries distinct, useful information.

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 compensates by disclosing the returned fields and ordering, and it places the tool within the broader candidate-stage workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description goes further by explaining the provenance of pipeline_template_id (sourced from list_offers / get_offer), which the schema itself does not convey. That added meaning lifts it above the baseline.

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+resource ('Fetch a pipeline template') and enumerates the returned structure ('ordered stages (id, name, group, category)'). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by tying the resource to list_offers/get_offer and move_candidate_stage, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves and why.

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: a job's pipeline_template_id names its pipeline, and the stage ids here are the inputs move_candidate_stage expects. This implicitly routes the agent to call it before stage moves, though it stops short of explicit when-not/exclusion guidance.

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