Full read of a job ad (ReLoop.me Role Intel)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the async pattern (returns read_id immediately), the 5–8 minute latency, the auth requirement, per-read billing and sandbox behavior, and the absence of salary data. It also states null-handling and output-usage rules that go well beyond structured fields.

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?

It is long and dense, but front-loaded with purpose and latency/flow before the rules, and nearly every clause carries operational weight. The branding/citation rules are slightly tangential to tool selection but are legitimate output-governance constraints.

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 an async, billed, credentialed tool with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to retrieve results, expected timing, cost, auth, and the boundary against the fast sibling. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents jd_text length bounds, PII stripping, location, and client_ref. The description adds only that it takes 'one job ad' and reinforces that null means unknown, which is the baseline level of added value when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Submits one job ad for a full ... capability intelligence read') and enumerates the concrete outputs: calibrated level, demanded capabilities with evidence, operating style on up to 10 axes, requirement inflation, engagement type. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling quick_check_job_ad by describing the full-vs-fast read tradeoff.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not ('For an answer in seconds, use quick_check_job_ad'), plus the follow-up path ('call get_read with it after about 6 minutes') and prerequisites (RELOOP_API_KEY). It even states what it must never be used for (ranking, screening, filtering or rejecting candidates).

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