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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description is not obligated to restate that this is a safe read. It adds the endpoint path, which gives a hint about underlying resource shape, but says nothing about result volume, total-count/pagination metadata, or cost of broad filters. Adequate against a low annotation bar, but thin on behavior beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded clauses: the action and capabilities come first, the scope and endpoint second. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden for return shape, yet it never says what a job record contains or whether pagination metadata (total pages/count) is returned. For a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters the gaps are survivable, but not complete.

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%, including defaults (page 1, page_size 20/max 100), a filter example, and the comparison enum, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing parameter-specific — 'with paging, filters and sort' merely names what the schema already fully documents, and does not clarify the nested filter/sort object semantics further.

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 ('List jobs (recruitments)') plus the three capabilities it exposes (paging, filters, sort) and the underlying endpoint GET /recruitments/. The parenthetical synonym 'recruitments' is genuinely useful terminology mapping. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from traffit_list_job_candidates or traffit_get_job, but the list-vs-get wording makes the boundary inferable.

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: recruitment' is the only contextual hint; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the browsing/query tool to use instead of traffit_get_job when no ID is known. Usage is implied by the endpoint semantics rather than stated.

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