get_digest

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description correctly implies mutation rather than contradicting it. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the ranking logic and the stateful prerequisite that fetch_jobs must run first. It stops short of warning that the default call consumes/suppresses jobs (mark_shown=true) — that disclosure lives only in the parameter schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its ordering, then the prerequisite, then the sibling routing. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema, so the description could say more about the shape of a digest entry (beyond 'people the user knows at each company'), and the default mark_shown=true side effect is not surfaced in prose. Still, prerequisite, ordering, and alternatives are all covered, which is most of what an agent needs.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains why results come back 'best first' and ties fit score to the scoring pass that score_top controls. This makes the limit/score_top interaction legible without reading parameter docs.

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: 'New jobs that pass the watchlist's filters, best first'. It also names the ordering rule (fit score, then keyword relevance), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_queued_jobs and list_applications, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Call fetch_jobs first to pick up today's postings') plus a when-not/what-else routing: 'for jobs already queued use list_queued_jobs, and for applications use list_applications.' Both the trigger and the alternatives are stated.

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