Classify Title

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: it makes no network calls ('without touching the network') and it reuses the exact heuristics of the search filters, implying deterministic, consistent offline classification. It does not describe cost, caching, or category output shape, so it stays at a solid-but-not-rich 3.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint ('Judge one job title without touching the network'), followed by the rationale. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter classification tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, offline behavior, and the motivating use case. The only gap is that it does not hint at what the classification returns (categories/labels), which the output schema presumably handles, so remaining context is minor.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving an example ('Senior MLOps Engineer'). The description adds no format, validation, or normalization guidance for the title string, so the baseline 3 for a fully-documented schema applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — judging a single job title — and adds that it 'exposes the same heuristics the search filters use,' which distinguishes it from the filtering siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling it is a dry-run for (search_jobs/search_many), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It gives a use context — 'so a caller can see how a title will be treated before trusting a filtered search' — which tells the agent this is a pre-validation step. However, it names no alternative tools and states no when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the choice between this and the search tools largely to inference.

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