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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'full detail,' implying comprehensive data, but doesn't specify what that includes or any other behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits. With annotations handling safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. However, given 0% schema coverage and 3 parameters, the description should compensate for parameter documentation, which it fails to do. The contextual gap is in parameter semantics, making it only minimally viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'iCIMS job' but does not explain the three parameters: id, lang, and domain. The agent must infer that 'id' is the job identifier, 'domain' is the iCIMS domain, and 'lang' is language, but the description provides no such clarification, leaving the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Single iCIMS job with full detail.' This clearly indicates it retrieves a single job from the iCIMS source, distinguishing it from jobs_icims_board (which likely lists jobs). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like jobs_icims_board, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used when you have a specific job ID from iCIMS, or that jobs_icims_board is for browsing. No prerequisites or context are given.

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