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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: why the tool must exist (no vendor publishes a customer directory) and that downstream board APIs require the board name this tool resolves. It doesn't cover what happens on zero or multiple matches.

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 the core purpose, and the rationale sentences earn most of their place. The aside that no vendor knows about the others is slightly redundant with the preceding sentence but still supports the 'why' framing.

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 two-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description explains the purpose and the downstream dependency clearly. It leaves the return shape (a list of up to 'limit' matches, with board type and board name) implied rather than stated, which is the main remaining gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that 'company' accepts a company or board name with case/punctuation insensitivity. The description only reinforces that the input is a company name rather than a careers URL, adding little 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it resolves which applicant-tracking system a company's careers page runs on. It also implicitly separates itself from list_open_jobs by framing the task as finding the board rather than reading jobs from it.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this first when you have a company name rather than a careers URL.' That clearly signals when to reach for this tool over URL-based alternatives, though it doesn't name list_open_jobs or other siblings directly.

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