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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds that results are 'open' jobs limited to a single provider, but leaves 'bounded' unexplained (pagination? max results?) and does not mention connection/auth failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact, though compactness here edges into under-specification.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition still omits what 'bounded' means, result limits or pagination behavior, and the relationship to the ATS-connection and candidate-listing siblings. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

workspaceId is documented in the schema, while provider's enum has no per-value description; the description only vaguely ties provider to a 'connected ATS provider'. With 50% schema coverage, it does not compensate for the undocumented provider semantics or explain how 'bounded' maps to parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('jobs') scoped to ATS and open jobs, making it distinguishable from siblings like list_roles and list_ats_candidates by domain. However, 'bounded' is undefined and there is no explicit sibling comparison.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over list_roles, list_ats_candidates, or get_job_status. The phrase 'one connected ATS provider' implies a connection prerequisite but does not tell the agent to call get_ats_connections first or what happens if the provider is not connected.

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