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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: returned fields, the absence of salary and company-name fields, how the link is constructed, and the x402 billing model with failed calls not charged. This is rich behavioral disclosure for a paid scraping 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?

The description is dense but front-loads the core purpose and parameter sourcing before covering output fields, limitations, and pricing. Every sentence is relevant, though the pricing detail could be separated for readability.

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 paid read-only scraper, the description covers the important operational context: where to get the required parameters, what fields are returned, key data limitations, and billing behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, but the description still provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented individually. The description adds a useful combined example ('salesforce / 12 / External_Career_Site') for mapping the required trio, but it does not explain the limit parameter or add much beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Open roles on one company's public Workday career site.' The example mapping of tenant/wd/site from the careers URL makes the resource concrete, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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 implies usage for public Workday career sites and explains how to populate the three required parameters from the careers URL. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over generic career-site or job-board siblings, nor when not to use it.

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