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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful domain context (no vendor publishes a customer directory, so this lookup exists to bridge that gap) and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about what is returned, how partial or ambiguous matches are handled, or whether failure to match is an error or an empty result.

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, purpose front-loaded, and the ecosystem explanation earns its place by justifying the tool's existence. Slightly more domain narrative than an agent strictly needs, but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It explains why the tool is needed but never says what the agent gets back (ATS vendor, board name, multiple candidates) or how to chain the result into list_open_jobs — the exact next step it sets up.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful framing that a company name is the input when a careers URL is unavailable, but no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema's own note that case and punctuation are ignored.

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: 'Find which applicant-tracking system a company's careers page runs on.' It also implicitly positions itself as a first-step lookup relative to a careers URL, but it never names the siblings (compare_companies, list_open_jobs) so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives an explicit trigger — 'Use this first when you have a company name rather than a careers URL' — plus the rationale that vendor APIs require a board name. There is no stated when-not condition and no named alternative, which keeps it 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.