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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful output detail (three poster sizes, QR code), but does not state the return format (files, links, images) or whether generation is immediate, which are important behavioral traits for a generator tool.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The output description is front-loaded, followed immediately by the accepted input sources.

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?

The description is largely complete for a tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema fully documents parameters. It clearly describes what posters are produced and what inputs are accepted, though without an output schema it could say more about the return format.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the accepted forms of the 'job' parameter and mentions its source (post_job or live job), but adds little about the other four parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 (making print-ready hiring posters) and enumerates the concrete outputs: A4 window poster, A5 poster, and A6 table card with QR codes. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like post_job or search_jobs.

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?

Explains when the tool applies: for a job created with post_job (by code or link) or a live Instead job (link or slug). It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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