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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: no salary data in this feed, a hard one-company-per-call limit, and a cost/payment model ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls uncharged). That pricing and failure-charge disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It stops short of the full 5 because it says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or what an empty board returns.

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 core purpose and the returned fields are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the pricing note is correctly placed last. Minor waste: the sibling descriptions repeat their full titles verbatim ('when you need Open roles from one company's public Greenhouse job board'), which is longer than needed to route the agent.

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 feed with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, sibling routing, field coverage, the salary gap, and the payment model. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly; return-value detail is legitimately left to the 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 both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description echoes the org parameter ('pass its organization name, e.g. ashby') without adding format or validation detail, and never mentions the limit parameter or its 1-100 range. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Open roles from one company's public Ashby job board') and immediately scopes it with 'one company per call'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, jobs_greenhouse_jobs (different provider) and jobs_multi_job_board (up to 5 boards in one call), so an agent can pick correctly 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 names the alternatives and the condition that selects each one: use jobs_greenhouse_jobs for Greenhouse boards, use jobs_multi_job_board when you need up to 5 named company boards in a single call. The 'one company per call' constraint reinforces when this tool is the wrong choice.

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