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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses the price model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), that failed calls are free, that unknown boards return a not-found result, and that each job is tagged with its source board. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling a metered tool.

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-loads the core purpose, then format, then return fields, then pricing — a sensible order with no filler. The billing sentence is long but carries unique information.

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 an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to add the non-obvious bits — supported systems, per-board attribution, not-found handling, missing salary data, and cost — and it covers all of them.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by enumerating the allowed system prefixes (greenhouse, lever, ashby) that the schema leaves as free-text with no enum constraint. The limit parameter is left entirely to 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 and resource ('Open roles from up to 5 named company boards in one call') and names the three supported systems. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the single-board siblings (jobs_greenhouse_jobs, jobs_lever_jobs, jobs_ashby_jobs_board), which sit right next to it in the list.

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?

The multi-board use case is implied by 'up to 5 named company boards in one call', and the format rules are clear, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the single-board tools or which boards are valid for which systems.

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