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

The readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations already tell the agent this is a safe, external read. The description adds the cross-call consistency constraint (same host/site as the board call), which is useful, but it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result size. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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 action and payload, then the sourcing constraint. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 3-param detail fetcher with an output schema that documents return values, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it fetches, where the ID comes from, and the host/site matching requirement.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating that `id` must be sourced from jobs_oracle_board and that host/site must match the originating board call, a relational constraint the schema does not encode.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (one Oracle Recruiting requisition) and it enumerates the payload (full description, responsibilities, qualifications). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling jobs_oracle_board, which is positioned as the discovery/list tool rather than the detail tool.

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?

Explicitly says the `id` must come from jobs_oracle_board and that `host` and `site` must be the same as that call's, and it names jobs_oracle_board as the way to discover requisition IDs. The workflow prerequisite and the alternative tool are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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