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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra details add useful context: results use the same field names across systems and one company's failure does not lose the others. It stops short of documenting auth, rate limits, or exact return fields.

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 short and front-loads the core capability in the first sentence. The remaining sentences add relevant differentiation and failure behavior, though the 'thing no single applicant-tracking system can do' wording is slightly promotional.

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 two-parameter, read-only, open-world tool with rich annotations and complete schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, normalization, and partial-failure behavior. It does not describe the output fields or how results are ordered, which keeps it from being fully complete in the absence of an output schema.

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 'companies' and 'per_company' including limits and default. The description only reinforces the multi-company scope and adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource (open jobs) with an explicit multi-company scope and normalized schema. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling tools find_company_board and list_open_jobs.

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 phrase 'across several companies at once' implies the comparison use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The vendor sentence is a value proposition rather than routing guidance.

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