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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses a non-obvious cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, no charge on failure) and a data limitation (salary not in the feed). These are meaningful traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 and data fields, then constraints and pricing. Slightly dense with the pricing sentence, but every clause carries useful information and nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description fills the remaining gaps: data fields returned, salary caveat, one-company scope, and billing behavior.

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 in the schema. The description's subdomain example largely restates the schema's own example, adding little beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (open roles on a Teamtailor career site) plus the exact source (jobs.rss feed). This clearly distinguishes it from the many other job-board siblings like jobs_greenhouse_jobs or jobs_lever_jobs.

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?

Explains the scoping constraint 'one company per call' and how to pass the subdomain ('career for career.teamtailor.com'), giving clear operational context. It doesn't explicitly route to an alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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