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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses that salary is not returned, that only one company's board is queried per call, and specifies the payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failures not charged), which is real auth/billing behavior an agent must know before calling.

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-loaded with the core purpose and token requirement, then related tools, then price. Efficient and scannable, though the enumerated return fields partially duplicate the output schema and the pricing boilerplate adds length.

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?

Rich context for a two-parameter read tool: annotations cover safety, an output schema covers returns, and the description covers scope limits and billing. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether `limit` paginates deeper results.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including the 'e.g. airbnb' example for `board`. The description adds only the 'one company per call' constraint, which reinforces the singular board token but adds little beyond the schema.

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 roles from one company's public Greenhouse job board') plus the required identifier ('pass its board token, e.g. airbnb or stripe'), and explicitly separates itself from the Ashby and Teamtailor siblings, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Gives a clear usage context ('one company per call') and names alternatives for different board providers (jobs_ashby_jobs_board, jobs_teamtailor_jobs). It does not, however, explain when to prefer this over a multi-board aggregator sibling such as jobs_multi_job_board.

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