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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the jobs are 'public', which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination defaults, ordering, or whether only published jobs are returned. Given the annotations, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists filters. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool is a list operation with moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema). The description covers the core purpose and filters but does not mention pagination behavior (page/size), the fact that only public jobs are returned (implicit but not explicit), or any defaults or limits. Given the annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but leaves some operational details up to assumption.

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 schema has low coverage (29%), only describing 'city' and 'country' as 'Exact match'. The description mentions filters: department, employment type, city, and country, which maps to department_id, employment_type_id, city, and country. However, it does not explain the types or formats of these parameters (e.g., that department_id and employment_type_id are IDs) nor does it clarify page and size parameters, which are left undocumented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the parameter names already imply, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb (list) and resource (public jobs of a company career site), and specifically lists filter dimensions. It is distinct from siblings like hires_list_jobs (which likely covers internal jobs) and hires_get_career_job (single job) because it explicitly says 'public jobs of a company career site', though it does not name those siblings. The title from annotations reinforces this, so an agent can infer the tool's unique scope.

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 description implies the tool is for public career-site jobs, which suggests it should be used when the user wants external-facing job listings, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like hires_list_jobs or hires_get_career_job. There is no 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance, leaving the choice to inference rather than explicit direction.

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