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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable trait: partial-failure tolerance ('One company failing does not lose the others') and cross-system field-name normalization. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, result ordering, and how invalid company identifiers are reported, so the behavioral picture is partial.

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 capability and scope lead the description, which is good front-loading. But the middle sentence ('This is the thing no single applicant-tracking system can do...') is promotional filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke, costing roughly a quarter of the text.

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?

Two parameters, no output schema, no annotations: the description covers the merged-schema return shape and partial failure, which are the two hardest things to guess. It still leaves the result envelope, ordering, and deduplication behavior unstated, and with no output schema those gaps matter.

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 the schema already documents both 'companies' and 'per_company' with bounds and defaults. The description adds no format guidance for company identifiers or per-company limits, so it does not exceed the baseline set by a fully documented 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?

States precisely what the tool returns: open jobs across several companies merged into one schema. The multi-company scope implicitly distinguishes it from list_open_jobs and find_company_board, but neither sibling is named, so the agent must infer the routing.

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 phrase 'across several companies at once' implies this is the batch alternative to the single-company siblings, and the maxItems=20 constraint is implied by the schema. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the split from the description alone.

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