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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auth requirement upfront, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or read-only nature. The behavioral traits beyond auth are unstated, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 extremely concise, using three short statements to convey auth requirement, tool purpose, rename history, and cross-reference. There is no redundant information, and the most critical element (auth) is front-loaded.

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 list-retrieval tool with two self-documenting parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and differentiates from related tools. It does not specify return structure, but the domain jargon and sibling names provide enough context for an agent familiar with the domain.

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 clear descriptions for both 'page' and 'perPage'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'Hire-type KalSchedules the agent posted', clearly indicating the scope (owner_type=Agent, type_id=3 / Hire). It includes history and a note differentiating from contract tasks, making the purpose clear for domain-aware users.

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 implicitly guides usage by noting the rename from 'get-hire-jobs' and stating 'contract tasks are now under get-my-events', directing users to an alternative for a different type. This provides context for when to use this tool versus siblings.

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