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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it uses the caller's own BYOK key, charges $0.02 per verified contact via USDC on base, and only bills for verified results (ambiguous/empty are free). It also implies external data provider calls. This adds context that the boolean hint annotations do not capture, such as cost and verification semantics.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the action and resource, and the second sentence adding pricing and fallback behavior. Every phrase serves a purpose—there is no fluff, repetition, or tangential information.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema) and sparse annotations, the description provides a solid overview of purpose, pricing, and edge cases. It does not fully describe the output structure, but the title and first sentence imply the output (hiring manager name + email). The schema fills in parameter details, making this reasonably complete for selection and invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including details like 'Direct posting link on a supported board' and 'Your own key, used on your own quota.' The main description adds high-level context about Greenhouse/Lever and BYOK, but it does not significantly extend the meaning beyond what the schema already explains, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Turn a Greenhouse or Lever vacancy into the named hiring owner behind it, with a provider-verified work address.' This is a specific verb ('turn') with a specific resource ('vacancy') and output ('hiring owner' + 'verified work address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like domain-to-verified-work-email by focusing on job posting URLs and ATS boards.

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 context—it's for Greenhouse or Lever vacancies with a BYOK enrichment key, and notes that unsupported boards yield free empty results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides clear exclusions beyond the board-type limitation. The guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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