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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (slugs intended for get_company), enabling correct tool chaining. It does not mention pagination limits, total counts, or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with the filter and return value. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 three-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional filtering, and return type. It omits pagination behavior (default size, 0-indexed pages) and how many companies exist, but those gaps are minor given the fully documented schema and safety annotations.

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 page, size, and query are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the optional name filter and adds nothing about pagination or the 1-50 size bound, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (companies) with a qualifying scope (open remote jobs), and contrasts with the sibling get_company by noting it returns slugs for that tool. An agent can distinguish it from search_jobs, list_categories, and get_company without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly states the filter is optional and names get_company as the downstream tool that consumes the returned slugs, which gives concrete usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative listing tool, so it is not a full 5.

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