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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the change is publicly visible on the career site and only affects published posts — but says nothing about required permissions or what an omitted parameter does, which matters because the schema lists zero required parameters.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the limited capability stated second. Nothing 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 one-parameter boolean toggle with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it affects publicly. The only omission is behavior when the parameter is omitted entirely (no-op vs. reset), which is a meaningful gap given zero required parameters.

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 the single boolean parameter (showSalaryRange) is already fully documented as "whether published job posts display their salary range." The description adds no syntax, default value, or partial-update semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 ("Update the organization's public career site settings") and then narrows the scope to the single capability currently supported: toggling salary-range display on published job posts. No sibling tool in the list touches career-site configuration, so the agent can route here without ambiguity, though the description never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for changing public career-site display behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (admin role, organization scoping), and no note that other job-related settings live in sibling tools such as update_job_description.

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