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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the failure mode ('Not every company exposes a feed... it says so and names the careers page'), warns that 'No feed found' does not equal not hiring, and states an auth prerequisite (a free SnoopScan key).

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 each subsequent sentence earns its place by covering mechanism, failure behavior, and auth. It is slightly paddier than necessary but has no wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter, read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, mechanism, failure semantics, and the API key requirement, leaving only the domain-vs-URL input ambiguity unresolved.

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 schema coverage at 0% for the single 'url' parameter, the description must compensate. It does clarify intent ('Give it a company domain'), but leaves ambiguity between a bare domain and a full URL, which the schema does not resolve either.

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 description gives a specific verb+resource ('What a company is currently recruiting for') and the title reinforces it ('Find a company's open jobs'), plus it explains the mechanism (careers page -> ATS -> public job feed). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like 'company' or 'domain', though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

It tells the agent what to pass ('Give it a company domain') and describes the failure mode, which implies the usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling alternative is named for the cases where a feed isn't available.

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