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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: deduping across boards, LinkedIn exclusion, freshness flooring, the distinction between first_seen and source_posted_at, and the fact that an invalid `function` returns an explicit error listing valid names rather than an empty result. That error-vs-empty-result contract is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries real information, but the prose is dense and hops between return-field semantics, error behavior, and limit bounds without clear structure, making it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 usefully documents the meaning of returned fields (`boards`, `first_seen`, `source_posted_at`), which is the right call for a read-only list tool. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination beyond the bounded `limit`.

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 only 17%, so the description must carry the load. It does well for `function` (name or id, plus rejection semantics) and `limit` (oversized pages are rejected, not truncated), but says nothing about `country`, `company_id`, or `idempotency_key`, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 concrete verb+resource+scope: the company's current active reqs, deduped across boards and LinkedIn-excluded. An agent can tell what it returns, though it never contrasts itself with adjacent siblings like find_qualified_reqs or who_is_hiring_for, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 explains what the data means but never says when to choose this tool over find_qualified_reqs, who_is_hiring_for, or search_jobs. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing are given, so selection is left entirely to inference.

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