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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, safe behavior. The description adds non-obvious semantics: what meta.unread_count/read_count and meta.filtered_count actually count relative to filters, and which identifiers to use for follow-up actions.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping. Every sentence adds practical value for an agent using the results.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still usefully clarifies meta-field behavior and identifier use. The main remaining gap is explicit routing versus sibling tools, which is a usage-guidance issue rather than a completeness failure.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains the tab default and refers to 'selected follow', but adds little about q, location, department, page, or limit beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: read matching openings from followed companies. The 'followed companies' scope distinguishes it from broad search tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It gives useful post-retrieval guidance — row id for marking read, opening.id for details or board — and notes the default tab. However, it does not say when to choose this over alternatives like search.company_openings or openings.get, so selection guidance is only implied.

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