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

Annotations already signal destructive and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context by clarifying that the destructive action is specifically deactivating publication visibility on boards, not deleting jobs. Scoping the effect to 'given boards' is meaningful additional behavioral information beyond the raw destructiveHint.

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?

The description is one short front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, the target resources, and the scope. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The description covers the basic operation and the schema is well documented, but there is a notable gap: 'boards' is optional in the schema while the description implies specific boards are always given. It does not explain what happens when boards is omitted, and there is no output schema or side-effect note to fill that vacuum.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and an example (e.g. indeed, linkedin), so the description does not need to re-explain them. It adds no extra detail about parameter behavior, such as what an omitted boards value means, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('deactivate publication') on a specific resource ('several jobs on the given boards'), and the batch wording clearly separates it from singular siblings like hires_remove_from_job_board and the opposite operation hires_batch_publish_to_boards. It is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

The phrase 'several jobs' implies this is the batch variant, and sibling names reinforce that, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over hires_remove_from_job_board or hires_batch_publish_to_boards. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues beyond the implied batch context.

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