careers_employer

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds that access is constrained by IE permissions and specifically disclaims side effects on messaging and target-employer lists, which is useful context beyond the raw flags. No contradiction exists.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the core function and then supplies a safety exclusion. Every phrase earns its place; no filler.

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 read-only parameterized lookup with output schema and rich annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it clarifies the views and safety profile. It could be more complete by pointing to sibling tools for list-level job/employer browsing, but that gap is not fatal given the schema.

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 0%, and the description compensates only partially: it maps the view enum values to 'details,' 'open opportunities,' and 'contacts.' It does not explain employer_id, limit, or offset semantics, although their names and schema constraints are reasonably self-evident.

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 identifies the resource (employer) and enumerates the three possible data views (details, jobs, contacts), and the closing safety clause distinguishes it from messaging/list-mutation tools. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'gets' or 'retrieves,' so the action is implied rather than stated.

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 signals when to use it—when employer details, open opportunities, or IE-permitted contacts are needed—and explicitly states it never sends messages or changes target-employer lists, providing a clear 'when not' boundary. It does not name sibling tools such as careers_employers or careers_jobs as alternatives, so routing among siblings is left implicit.

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