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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'No login, no scraping, no proxies' clarifies the safe, authorized nature of the operation, while the normalization clause ('title, location, department, URL, posted date') discloses exactly what the returned rows contain. Pricing and payment method are also disclosed. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences cover the core purpose, output format, operational guarantees, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and every clause earns its place—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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists output fields, explicitly covers the no-login/no-scraping behavior, and even includes pricing. It tells the agent everything needed to invoke and interpret results without external discovery.

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 both parameters (items format and maxConcurrency semantics). The description adds some context (e.g., mentioning Greenhouse/Lever/Ashby aligns with the provider values) but doesn't substantially augment parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Pull' and names the resource ('a company's public applicant-tracking system (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby)') along with the normalization outcome ('one row per posting: title, location, department, URL, posted date'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like property listings or tender alerts, which target different domains.

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 when to use the tool—when you need all open roles from a company's ATS—and adds differentiating context like 'No login, no scraping, no proxies.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'job-alert', 'jobs-ch-swiss', 'xing-jobs') or provide a when-not-to-use statement, so guidance remains 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.