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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: auth requirement, graceful handling of dead ids with reason reporting, and the performance implication of includeDescription=false (no vendor fetch). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single paragraph of three sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but efficient; no structural waste.

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?

Given the tool's modest complexity (2 params, output schema provided), the description covers purpose, differentiation, edge cases, and auth. It doesn't detail return structure, but that's adequately handled by the output schema. No critical missing information.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enriches both parameters: 'ids' are explained via the resilience behavior, and 'includeDescription' gets a usage nuance ('cards and freshness only, much smaller') that complements the schema's character cap note. It adds meaning beyond the schema's dry field descriptions.

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 the operation: 'Full detail for up to 10 job ids in ONE call' and explicitly frames it as 'the shortlist form of get_job', instantly distinguishing it from the sibling tool. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope is bounded.

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 when to use this tool (multiple job ids) versus get_job (single full description), and gives a concrete usage tip: 'Set includeDescription=false for cards and freshness only'. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'Needs a key or a sign-in', so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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