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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations do not: results are scoped strictly to 'this account's' jobs (no cross-account leakage) and the payload includes derived data (applicants per stage) and a 'Free' no-charge guarantee. It does not disclose result limits or ordering.

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 terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the account scope and returned fields lead. The trailing 'Free.' is a fragment that is useful but stylistically abrupt, and 'page' is left ambiguous (career page vs. pagination).

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and only partially does so (status, page, applicants per stage). It omits whether results are paginated, sorted, or how many jobs are returned, which matters for an unbounded list tool on an account with many jobs.

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?

The single optional parameter has 0% description coverage and is never mentioned in the description; the agent must infer that passing the enum skips the status filter and that omitting it returns jobs of all statuses. Because the parameter is a self-documenting enum with three obvious values, the cost of the omission is low, so this lands at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 (this account's jobs) plus what each row carries: status, page, and applicants per stage. That distinguishes it from hiring_list_applicants (applicant-level rows) and hiring_screen_queue, though no sibling is named explicitly. 'Free' additionally signals it is a no-cost read.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it to get an overview of the hiring pipeline including per-stage applicant counts — and 'Free' hints it should be preferred over paid alternatives for job data. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of pairing with hiring_list_applicants for detail, and no prerequisite context.

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