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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and openness (openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: each job carries its source system, a missing board is surfaced as 'not found' rather than silently dropped, salary is usually absent, and billing is $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 with failures not charged. Pagination/rate-limit behavior and the maximum effective page depth are not addressed.

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 purpose and scope come first, followed by return fields, then alternatives, then price – a sensible order with no filler sentences. The 'Related tools on this server, for a different need:' scaffolding is slightly wordy, but the content after it earns its place.

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 aggregator with an output schema, the description covers the things structured fields cannot: which backends are queried, how partial misses are reported, why salary is often missing, and what the call costs. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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, including the 1–100 range and default of 20 for limit and the 'airbnb'-style token example. The description adds nothing about token format, case sensitivity, or what happens if the token exists on only some of the three systems, so it stays at the schema baseline.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Open roles for one company token') and enumerates the three backing systems (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby), which immediately separates it from the single-ATS siblings jobs_greenhouse_jobs, jobs_lever_jobs and jobs_ashby_jobs. It also states the per-source attribution behavior, so the agent knows exactly what kind of aggregate result to expect.

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 explicitly routes two adjacent needs to jobs_teamtailor_jobs and jobs_workday_jobs, which is real when-to-use-elsewhere guidance. It never contrasts itself with the single-board Greenhouse/Lever/Ashby tools that overlap most directly, so the most likely confusion case is left to inference.

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