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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, lowering the burden. The description adds behavior beyond those: it 'finds the ATS itself' and honestly reports 'confirmed zero, partial, and unresolved states,' indicating it won't return false negatives. It also discloses the per-call cost, which is useful operational context not in annotations.

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 accomplishes its task in one focused sentence plus a brief pricing note. It front-loads the primary action, lists supported ATS systems, and summarizes key output states without fluff. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the main return values (attributed jobs, function/seniority, evidence, states) and mentions the unresolved-state honesty. It doesn't describe table structure or pagination, but that's partly in the schema. Overall it's sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool.

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?

The description itself adds no parameter details, but the input schema provides 100% coverage with rich explanations for each of the 4 parameters, including examples, defaults, and edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Resolve' and a clear resource: company domains to public ATS boards across six named platforms. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on ATS job scraping, and explicitly lists the output attributes (jobs, seniority, source evidence, states). No ambiguity.

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 its use case (resolving domains to ATS jobs) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't reference alternatives among siblings or state when a different tool would be better, relying instead on the schema's detailed parameter descriptions for context.

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