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

With no annotations, the description discloses that auth is required, the tool is deprecated, and it is an alias of get-my-jobs (same behavior). It adds the specific scope (Hire-type, owner_type=Agent, type_id=3). However, it does not mention additional traits like rate limits or idempotency, but the aliasing implies these are shared with get-my-jobs.

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?

The description is a single sentence plus tags, conveying all essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured with clear tokens for auth, deprecation, and aliasing.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain the return format, leaving the agent to infer from get-my-jobs. For a deprecated alias, this may suffice, but ideally the description would mention the output structure or reference the non-deprecated tool's documentation.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Page number', 'Results per page'). The tool description does not add any further parameter information, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves Hire-type KalSchedules posted by the agent, explicitly notes deprecation and aliasing to get-my-jobs, and distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools.

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 description explicitly says '[DEPRECATED — use get-my-jobs]', providing clear guidance to use an alternative tool and noting that it is an alias with identical logic and payload.

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