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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description explains the internal workflow: locate the careers page, identify the ATS, read its public job feed. It also discloses the important fallback behavior of naming the careers page when no feed exists and explicitly warns the agent not to read 'no feed' as 'not hiring'.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by method and caveats, with no wasted operational detail. Some motivational framing ('A company hiring six engineers has budget...') is not strictly necessary, but it is brief and does not obscure the guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are already covered. The description covers the input, the multi-step process, the fallback behavior, and the interpretation of negative results, making it fully sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by saying 'Give it a company domain,' which clarifies the lone required parameter is a company identifier rather than an arbitrary URL. It could be more precise about accepted URL formats, but it provides enough semantic guidance for an agent to proceed.

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 title and description both state a specific verb and resource: find a company's open jobs. The description further distinguishes it from generic crawling by explaining it reads the ATS's public job feed and returns real roles, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like listPosts or listProducts.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to know what a company is currently recruiting for, and it tells the agent to supply a company domain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions among the sibling tools, but the purpose is sufficiently contextualized.

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