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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real value beyond them: the exact return fields, the salary-parsing policy ('refused rather than guessed' with three named failure cases), the salary_text fallback, and that contact details are stripped. Pagination/limit behavior is not disclosed, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope, then return fields, then the salary edge-case policy. Dense but every clause carries information; the salary policy is slightly over-weighted relative to the omitted limit behavior, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the returned fields and the salary edge cases, which it does well. It omits how limit/pagination behaves and how to resolve an ambiguous company identifier (the find_company_board sibling), leaving a small but real gap.

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 100%, so the three parameters including company's accepted formats are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the single-company scope and that descriptions are excluded by default, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource with scope: 'Every open job at one company, read from its own careers system.' An agent can immediately tell this is a per-company listing tool, implicitly distinct from compare_companies (multi-company). It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'at one company' — there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to find_company_board for resolving a board name or compare_companies for cross-company views. An agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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