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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth profile ('reads their public job APIs, so no login is needed'), which is real added value, but says nothing about rate limits, failure behavior, pagination, or what the scrape returns.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the useful no-login constraint appended. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema scraper, the description covers purpose, platforms, and auth but omits return shape and operational limits that an agent calling a scraping tool would benefit from. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 schema already documents company slug format, the platform enum, and maxResults default. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics (e.g., how 'auto' detection resolves), 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 (scrape) and resource (job listings from company ATS boards) and enumerates the four supported platforms, which implicitly distinguishes it from generic job-search siblings like search_linkedin_jobs. It lacks an explicit contrast against those siblings, keeping it just below a 5.

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 by the platform list and the note that no login is needed, so an agent can infer this is for pulling a specific company's postings without auth. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., versus search_linkedin_jobs) and no when-not conditions.

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