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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 'data_as_of' freshness field, the page cap and 'truncated' flag for SmartRecruiters, and the 1-credit cost. It omits auth requirements and general rate-limit behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the purpose and accepted input forms are front-loaded, and the edge-case behavior (truncation, cost) is appended where it belongs.

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?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key return semantics (data_as_of, truncated) and cost, which is most of what an agent needs. Auth/permission context is the only notable omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the provider enum and its Workable 429 caveat. The description's mention of board slugs and ATS detection largely restates what the schema says, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Returns all public postings for one company,' plus the multi-ATS detection behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_jobs, so an agent must infer the company-scoped vs. cross-company split.

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 tells the agent what input is acceptable ('a tracked company name, or any board slug') and that detection is automatic, which implies when this tool fits. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer search_jobs or list_supported_companies instead.

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