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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), yet the description adds real behavior: dead/aged-out/off-board ids surface in `unavailable` with a named reason and don't fail the batch, includeDescription=false avoids the vendor fetch, and auth is required ('needs a key or a sign-in'). This is exactly the extra context annotations can't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and tightly written; every clause carries information. It is dense (long em-dash-chained sentences) which costs a little readability but nothing is padding.

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 an output schema present the description needn't describe returns, and it covers the remaining agent-relevant facts: batch cap, partial-failure semantics, the size/fetch tradeoff, and auth. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds consequence-level meaning: the ids cap of 10 is framed as '10 separate detail reads that may fetch the employer's page', and includeDescription=false is explained as 'cards and freshness only (much smaller, and no vendor fetch)'.

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+resource with scope ('Full detail for up to 10 job ids in ONE call') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling get_job as 'the shortlist form'. An agent can distinguish it from get_job and search_jobs without opening any 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?

Routes clearly: batch here vs. single-id detail via get_job (reinforced by the includeDescription param note), and gives a concrete condition for includeDescription=false ('much smaller, and no vendor fetch'). It doesn't spell out a when-not beyond that, but the alternative is named.

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