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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior: returned fields, that descriptions are excluded, one-company-per-call scope, and the x402 payment model with failed calls not charged. It does not cover rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 description is front-loaded with the core resource and scope, followed by useful field coverage, exclusions, alternatives, and pricing. It is slightly long and the detailed field list partially duplicates what the output schema already conveys, but no sentence is clearly wasteful.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers selection, scope, payment, and key return-value expectations well. A small gap remains in not disambiguating against the broader set of job-board siblings beyond Ashby and Greenhouse.

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 already 100%, and the description largely repeats the company identifier example that is also in the schema. It reinforces the one-company-per-call constraint but adds no new meaning for the limit parameter, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb/resource combination: retrieving open postings for one company from SmartRecruiters' public Posting API. It also contrasts this with Ashby and Greenhouse sibling tools, so the agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 says one company per call and names alternatives for a different need, with the condition that those tools are for Ashby or Greenhouse job boards. The pricing note further clarifies the invocation context for paid calls.

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