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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds information annotations cannot express: the supported ATS platforms (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workable, SmartRecruiters), the not_found fallback for everyone else, and the 5-company cap. It also previews the returned fields and salary-publishing caveat.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then constraints, then filters, then return shape — a logical flow. The example list and the filter enumeration add length, though both carry genuine selection value rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return detail is optional, yet the description still summarizes outputs helpfully. Combined with the platform-coverage caveat, the company cap, and the example queries, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 real usage nuance beyond the schema: company names should be passed 'as the user says them' or as careers page links, and it names the available filters. It does not add syntax or format detail for parameters like postedSince or location that the schema lacks.

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 ('Find open jobs at specific companies') and reinforces it with concrete query examples that make the scope unmistakable. No sibling tool competes for this job, so the definition is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Example queries ('jobs at Stripe', 'is Notion hiring designers?') clearly signal when to reach for this tool, and it discloses a boundary via the not_found behavior for unsupported platforms. It stops short of naming alternative siblings such as rank_jobs_for_profile or job_fit_brief for downstream job workflows.

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