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 the underlying endpoint and the fact that returned ids are consumed as job filters, which is genuine context. It does not disclose rate limits, whether the list is exhaustive per page, or return fields, so it's a modest add rather than rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences: what it lists, why the caller cares, and the endpoint. Front-loaded with the resource definition and zero filler. Nothing repeats the 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 simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage and annotations carrying safety, this covers nearly everything needed to invoke correctly. The only soft gap is return shape — no output schema exists, so stating which fields a unit carries (beyond ids) would have closed the loop.

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% and both parameters (page, page_size) are fully documented in the schema, including the next_page chaining hint, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing about the parameters themselves — 'use the ids' refers to output, not inputs.

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, crucially, disambiguates the ambiguous term 'units' as entities/subsidiaries/sites of the company. That tells an agent this is an org-structure lookup, clearly distinct from job/candidate/pool siblings. It stops just short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the parenthetical does the disambiguation work.

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?

The sentence 'Use the ids to filter jobs' implies a downstream workflow (fetch units, then scope jobs by unit id), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus not, no prerequisites, and no note that pagination must be followed to enumerate all units.

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