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

The description and title claim 'preview only' and 'nothing changed yet', implying read-only behavior, but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to explain side effects, output, or error behavior beyond 'bind fields are rejected'.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose, but the phrase 'bind fields are rejected' is cryptic and could be clearer. It is concise but under-specified for the information needed.

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 no output schema and no explanation of return values, the description leaves the agent guessing what the preview returns. It also does not compensate for the 0% parameter coverage or clarify the contradictory annotation behavior.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for request_id, job_posting_id, or idempotency_key. 'Bind fields' is mentioned but never mapped to specific parameters, leaving the agent without any parameter guidance.

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 it previews job-posting archive approval requirements, and the phrase 'only' plus 'bind fields are rejected' helps differentiate it from the actual archive/bind operation. The resource and action are specific, though 'bind fields' is vague.

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 implies this is not the binding operation but does not explicitly name the alternative (archive_bind) or state when to use this tool versus that one. It also provides no prerequisites or conditions for when to call it.

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