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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses cost ($0.01, free when no board or no open jobs), the 300-job cap, and the diff semantics of known_job_ids returning new and closed jobs. Cost and truncation limits are behavioral traits the annotations do not carry, and there is no contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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 sentences, each carrying load: capability+providers+fields, then limits and pricing, then routing to siblings. Slightly dense in the first sentence but front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no filler.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: data sources, field set, result cap, diff workflow, cost, failure/free case, and sibling alternatives. Nothing material is missing for a read-only lookup tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description mostly restates what the schema says about known_job_ids ("returns new and closed jobs") and diff_only. It adds no syntax, ID format, or example detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ("Live open jobs for a company domain") and names the six source providers (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workable, Recruitee, SmartRecruiters) plus the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from get_company_hiring_intent and get_company_profile, which are named explicitly.

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 final sentence gives an explicit routing rule: "Use for individual role listings; use get_company_hiring_intent for a hiring score or get_company_profile for combined company research." Both alternatives and the condition that selects them are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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