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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior, the description adds useful provenance and freshness details: roles come directly from company career boards and are re-checked daily. It also clarifies output handling by saying to show the `url` field and noting that `apply_url` is the company's own posting.

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 front-loaded and compact. Each sentence contributes useful information: scope, data source/freshness, coverage, and output field guidance.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, available output schema, and explicit annotations, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It adds source, freshness, coverage, and output display guidance without needing to restate schema details.

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% for the single `company` parameter, including an example. The description only adds the phrase 'at one company,' which does not significantly extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 states a specific resource and scope: open engineering roles at one company, including funding, level counts, locations, and newest roles. It clearly distinguishes this from a single job lookup or broad job search through the 'one company' framing.

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 one-company scope implies when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly compare it with siblings like search_jobs or get_job. There are no when-not-to-use or alternative-selection cues.

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