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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies the data is current ('currently has open') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the institution is not found, whether results are paginated, or what the return format looks like. Minimal disclosure beyond the core action.

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, which is appropriately short for a simple tool. It front-loads the core action and filter. However, the phrase 'on the board' is jargon that may confuse; a slightly more explicit phrase like 'on the job board' would improve clarity without much length.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description gives the essential purpose and parameter meaning. But it omits any usage guidance, behavioral details (e.g., response shape, error behavior), and the meaning of 'board' is ambiguous. Given no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It says 'by institution name,' which tells the agent that the 'institution' string is the name of the museum or gallery. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it lacks format examples or any note on required format (e.g., exact name vs partial match).

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 states the verb implicitly (listing roles) and the resource (open roles for a museum/gallery), filtered by institution name. It is clear enough to distinguish from search_jobs (which likely searches across institutions) and get_job (which likely fetches a specific role), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention search_jobs, get_job, or salary_transparency, nor does it state conditions under which this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer that this is the right choice when the institution is already known.

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