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

The annotations only cover read-only and open-world traits; the description adds the material operational facts: the exact supported boards (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workable, SmartRecruiters, Recruitee, schema.org), the miss behavior ('when none is found the result says so and is not charged'), and the billing model (3 credits, misses/errors free). Those are exactly the behaviors that determine whether an agent should call it.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the return contract before the routing rule and cost. No sentence is filler: the board list, the miss-billing rule, and the sibling exclusion each change agent behavior.

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 still enumerates the return payload, covers the empty-result case, and discloses cost and coverage. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the response.

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 'domain' parameter, so the schema already carries the syntax. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the literal example already present, which is the baseline-3 case where structured data does the lifting.

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?

It names a specific resource and verb ('Returns live open roles for a company') and enumerates exactly what comes back: count, departments, locations, and a role list with links. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling apione_signals, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either 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?

It states the use case directly ('Use to see whether and where a company is hiring') and gives an explicit negative boundary with the alternative ('Not for funding or expansion news (use apione_signals)'). When-to-use, when-not, and the fallback tool are all present.

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