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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the re-read mechanism, an ~36-hour lag before a posting is marked closed, a three-state result including 'unknown', and a last-confirmed timestamp. What is missing is any note on rate limits or caching.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads the answer and its caveats, the second states applicability. No filler or restated title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: the tri-state result, the last-confirmed timestamp, and the ~36-hour freshness window. Together with annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 50%: url is documented, job_id is not. The description partially compensates by framing the input as a 'careers-site link', which clarifies the url parameter's expected form. It says nothing about job_id or how the two parameters relate, so the gap is only partly filled.

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 question/verb-resource: whether a job posting is still open on the employer's careers site, and returns one of three named states. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compare_job_posting and hiring_market without opening any schema.

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 gives an input precondition ('given its careers-site link') and notes it works for any employer's posting, which implies when it applies. But it never states when to prefer this over compare_job_posting or the report tools, nor any exclusions (e.g., non-careers-site links).

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