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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered before the description is read. The description adds the underlying route (GET /employees/{id}/recruitments), which usefully explains why 'candidate' maps to 'employee' in the API, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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 the purpose before the implementation detail. Every clause carries information, though the raw endpoint string is more developer-facing than agent-facing.

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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what a 'job' record contains or whether results are paginated. A brief note on the returned shape would close the only real gap.

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 the single parameter candidate_id is fully documented in the schema as a numeric id. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that, 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?

"List the jobs (recruitments) a candidate takes part in" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical disambiguates 'jobs' as recruitments. It is clear what is returned at a high level, though it never contrasts itself with the close sibling traffit_list_job_candidates, which operates on the same two entities from the opposite direction.

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?

"Scope: employee" hints that this is the single-candidate view rather than a global job listing, which implies when to reach for it over traffit_list_jobs. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion naming an alternative, so routing is left to inference.

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