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

Goes beyond the annotations by explaining exactly what the destructiveHint destroys — 'calling it for a role that already has one replaces its filters' — and confirms idempotentHint with 'the same call twice changes nothing'. It also discloses the auth requirement and the side effect (techjobs.vn emails a digest), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered by importance: precondition, effect, then the replace/idempotent rule. Every clause carries operational information and none is redundant.

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 4-parameter, enum-driven mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, what is created, what is overwritten, and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, enum, and default. The description only adds that matching jobs arrive as a digest, which lightly informs cadence, but it does not explain defaults or enum mapping beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sets the signed-in user's alert for new jobs in a role') and immediately scopes it with 'optionally filtered by seniority and city' plus the digest delivery mechanism. Nothing in the sibling list offers role alerts, so the tool is distinguishable without reading the 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?

Gives the precondition explicitly ('Requires techjobs.vn sign-in') and clarifies the replacement/idempotency semantics an agent needs before calling. It does not point to a sibling for adjacent intents (e.g. follow_company or track_job), so a small routing gap remains.

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