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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. It does add useful output context (status and per-job candidate counts) beyond the annotations, but nothing about scoping, pagination, or the fact that results default to ATIVA jobs only.

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, no filler. The purpose/return value leads, and the workflow hint follows, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and workflow placement, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It leaves minor gaps around result scoping/defaults and pagination behavior that would otherwise matter.

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% and both parameters (status enum with ATIVA/RASCUNHO meanings and default, language) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the company's job openings') and even names the returned fields (status, candidate count), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like detalhar_vaga, but the list vs. detail distinction is obvious from the verb.

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 a concrete use case: 'Use it to find a job id before looking at candidates or inviting someone,' which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It omits any when-not guidance or explicit alternative (e.g., use detalhar_vaga for a specific job's full details).

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