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 non-obvious behavior: no salary data in this feed, a hard one-company-per-call limit, and per-call pricing ($0.002 USDC via x402, failures not charged). It stops short of describing volume or rate limits on repeated calls.

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 returned fields are front-loaded, then limitations, then alternatives, then price — a sensible order. Some phrasing is redundant boilerplate ('Related tools on this server, for a different need', the awkward 'looked up on the three') and the prose is a run-on block of sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety; the description still supplies the data limitation and pricing that neither structured field carries. Coverage is strong, with only call-volume behavior and error cases left implicit.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default limit of 20 and its 1-100 range. The description only restates the site-name concept and the one-company-per-call constraint, adding nothing about format or edge cases beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the specific resource (open roles on Lever) with the scope constraint 'one company per call' and a concrete example site name ('spotify'). It also routes the agent away from two similarly-purposed siblings, so it is distinguishable without opening any 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?

Explicitly names jobs_ashby_jobs_board and jobs_career_site_jobs as alternatives 'for a different need' with the condition that selects each. There is no inverse statement of when to prefer this tool (i.e. 'use this when the company's board is hosted on Lever'), but the Lever-specific framing implies it clearly.

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