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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are returned 'newest first' and each row carries status, location, pay and candidate counts. It omits pagination behavior (that a cursor is needed to continue), which the schema covers but the description does not reinforce.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns before mentioning the filtering options. Every clause carries information: the ordering, the returned fields and the two filter axes.

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 no output schema, the description's payload summary ('status, location, pay and how many candidates each has') is doing real work and is appropriately included. For a five-parameter, all-optional read tool it is nearly complete; the only shortfall is that paging behavior and total-count semantics are left to the schema.

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 five parameters (query, cursor, status, page_size, posted_within_days) are already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings and defaults. The description only restates that status and title query can be used for filtering, adding no format or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 and resource ('List job postings in your AvaHR account') and immediately distinguishes itself from get_job by describing a multi-item, ordered list with per-item summary fields. The ordering ('newest first') and payload summary make the tool's identity unmistakable among siblings like list_job_stages and list_pipelines.

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 usage through 'Filter by status or search titles,' which tells the agent two useful narrowing paths but never states when to prefer this tool over get_job for a single record or over search_candidates. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance is given, so the agent must infer the boundary between list and detail tools.

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