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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: multi-provider aggregation into one schema and the non-obvious quota rule (every 3 jobs = 1 result, rounded up per request), which materially affects how an agent should size its calls.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the parenthetical field list and quota note following efficiently. Slightly dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 helpfully enumerates the return fields (title, team, location, remote, salary, apply URL) and explains the quota model, filling the biggest gaps. It is not fully complete for a 9-parameter tool, as several filter parameters and their semantics remain only in 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 coverage is 44%, below the 50% threshold, so the description should compensate more. It does name the filter categories (title, location, department, recency), which loosely maps to titleKeywords/locations/departments/postedWithinDays, but leaves remoteOnly, includeDescription, excludeTitleKeywords, maxJobsPerCompany, and the companies input format undocumented in prose.

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 (List) and resource (open jobs from company careers pages), names the concrete ATS providers covered (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, SmartRecruiters, Recruitee), and enumerates the normalized output fields. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, none of which concerns job postings.

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 by describing the filters and coverage, but never states explicitly when to reach for this tool versus an alternative, nor any prerequisites. Since no sibling overlaps, the risk is low, but no when/when-not guidance is actually given.

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