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: metered pricing ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, Base/Solana/Arc) and that failed calls are not charged. It does not describe pagination or rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load what the tool returns, then the addressing rule, then the pricing model. No filler and nothing buried.

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 present, return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still summarizes fields and discloses the per-call cost and one-company constraint. Minor omissions like failure modes (what happens when the subdomain doesn't exist) keep it below 5.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's subdomain-to-domain example ('bunq for bunq.recruitee.com') reinforces the company parameter's expected format but adds little the schema does not already say, and it says nothing about limit.

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 ('Published openings on one company's public Recruitee careers site') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other job-board siblings beyond naming Recruitee as the source, which keeps it at 4.

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?

'One company per call' plus the subdomain example implies the usage shape, and the public-careers-site framing hints at scope. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over jobs_greenhouse_jobs, jobs_lever_jobs or other boards, and no stated exclusions.

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