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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely discharges it: it discloses the $0.005 USDC price, that the payment challenge and credentials bind to the GET URL rather than mcp://, retry semantics with identical authorized arguments, and that a source failure surfaces as unavailable rather than an empty board. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a paid, auth-gated read.

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-loaded with purpose and return shape, and most sentences earn their place. Some fragments ("the acquired free recipe," "Partial, missing, duplicate, listed, empty, and changed stay explicit") are dense jargon that costs clarity without much added meaning.

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 not be re-explained, and the description still covers payment, failure, and retry behavior for a paid tool with no annotations. The residual gap is the undefined state vocabulary ("listed," "changed") that an agent may not be able to interpret.

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 100%, so both `board` and `company` (including the alias-must-resolve-to-same-id rule) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond "one configured public careers board," 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 and resource ("Read one configured public careers board") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names the sibling it is not (careers_board_cold), making the distinction inferable without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to `careers_board_cold` for the "acquired free recipe," which is real when-to-use guidance against an alternative. However, the phrasing is cryptic and it never states the positive condition for choosing this tool over the cold variant, leaving some inference required.

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