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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the set of supported ATS providers, what filtering is applied (keywords, location, remote, age), that descriptions are optional and off by default, and that salary is only present 'when published'. It omits failure behavior for companies with no discoverable ATS and any latency or limit guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then output shape, then filters, then use cases – a sensible order with no filler. The output enumerations ('remote/hybrid/onsite', the ATS list) make it dense and slightly run-on, but each clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 an 8-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, sources, filtering, and intended use, which is nearly everything needed to call it. The remaining gaps are the semantics of 'ats' and 'limit' and error behavior for unresolvable companies, which are minor against the output schema handling returns.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does cover keywords, location, remote_only, posted_within_days ('age') and include_description implicitly, and the ATS list hints at the 'ats' parameter, but it never explains that 'ats' forces a specific provider or that 'limit' exists and defaults to 50. Two of eight parameters remain undocumented.

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+resource ('Open jobs at any company from its applicant tracking system') and immediately distinguishes itself from generic company-data siblings by naming the ATS sources and the resolution modes (name, careers page, board URL). An agent knows exactly what this returns and cannot confuse it with us_company_search or us_company_profile.

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 closing clause names three concrete use cases (job search agents, hiring signals, sales intelligence) and the description explains that the company can be given as a name, careers page, or board URL, which is real invocation guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at an alternative tool for non-job company data.

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