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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come back ordered, which matters for interpreting position, but says nothing about pagination, behavior when a job has no steps, or error handling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the practical use. The trailing raw endpoint path is minor noise but does not obscure anything.

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, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description does what is needed: it states the returned shape and the reason to call it. Only the absence of edge-case behavior (empty pipeline, invalid job id) keeps it from a 5.

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% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no format, sourcing, or scoping detail beyond that, which is the expected 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('recruitment pipeline steps of a job, in order') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, order). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_job_statuses or get_job_filters by scoping to a job's pipeline, though it never names those alternatives 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?

It offers one concrete use case ('read where each candidate stands'), which gives an agent a workable sense of when to call it. However, there is no exclusion guidance, no mention of how it relates to get_job or get_candidate_applications, and no prerequisites stated.

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