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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is preview-only, returns or checks approval requirements, and rejects bind fields. Combined with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the agent gets a clear picture that this is a non-destructive, idempotent preview operation. It does not disclose output shape, but the preview scope mitigates that gap.

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 no filler. Every clause earns its place: it states the purpose ('preview approval requirements'), the limitation ('only'), and the key rejection behavior ('bind fields are rejected').

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 preview tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the key validation constraint. It could be slightly richer in explaining what 'approval requirements' means or what the response contains, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly from this description.

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 needed to compensate for the three parameters, but it provides no details about job_posting_id, request_id, or idempotency_key. The only parameter-related hint, 'bind fields are rejected,' refers to fields not present in the schema. Property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb-object pair, 'Preview job-posting publish approval requirements only,' and explicitly contrasts itself with binding via 'bind fields are rejected.' This clearly separates it from sibling publish_bind tools and states what the tool does and does not do.

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 signals when to use this tool: to preview approval requirements rather than to actually bind or publish. The explicit 'bind fields are rejected' warning is an effective exclusion that prevents an agent from using this as a publish/bind tool, though it does not name the preferred alternative tool explicitly.

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