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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a hard cap of 300 jobs per call, the diff/known_job_ids mechanism, and the billing rule that a missing board, an empty board, or a downed board API is not charged. These are exactly the operational traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the returned fields before moving to the diff workflow and the billing caveat. Dense and largely waste-free, though the long first sentence packs a lot and the billing clause could be its own crisp line.

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 compensates by enumerating return fields (titles, departments, locations, remote flag, salary when published, tech keywords) and documents the 300-item limit plus the empty/down-board edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 domain, diff_only, and known_job_ids are already documented in the schema (including diff_only's dependency on known_job_ids). The description restates that dependency and adds the 'new and closed job IDs' framing, but supplies no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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+resource ('Open jobs for a company domain') and enumerates the exact sources (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workable, Recruitee, SmartRecruiters) plus the fields returned. An agent immediately knows this retrieves public job-board postings for a domain, which is wholly distinct from the unrelated sibling detect_website_tech_stack.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: pass known_job_ids from an earlier call to get new and closed IDs, and use diff_only for only the new jobs. There are no alternative tools to route away from, so the absence of explicit exclusions is not a gap, but it stops short of stating when a caller should prefer a full pull vs. a diff.

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