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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burden is largely covered. The description adds a useful availability caveat ('structured compensation when available'), but does not disclose anything further about auth, rate limits, or missing-field behavior.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the fetch description is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description is essentially complete. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify the relationship between the company subdomain and the offer id, which the schema mostly handles anyway.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters (company as Recruitee subdomain, id as offer id). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (Fetch), a precise resource (a single Recruitee job-offer), and the payload scope (full description and structured compensation). It explicitly names the sibling jobs_recruitee_offers and contrasts the single-offer fetch against browsing listings, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

It routes the agent to jobs_recruitee_offers for browsing a board's listings, which implies this tool is the detail lookup keyed by offer id. There is clear context but no explicit statement of when-not to use it (e.g., that it requires a known id rather than a search term).

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