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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses the exact returned fields, the salary-parsing policy ('refused rather than guessed', with concrete failure cases), the salary_text fallback, and that contact details are stripped either way. It stops short of stating auth needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the limit cap.

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, front-loaded with the scope and source before the return-value list and the salary caveat. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the return-field enumeration is long but functional.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly, including the salary edge cases and verify_url. It leaves pagination semantics (how to page past limit=200) and permission requirements unstated, a minor gap for a read-only list 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents company, limit, and include_description, and the description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('Every open job at one company'), and scopes the source ('read from its own careers system'), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from compare_companies and find_company_board.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Every open job at one company' signals a single-company lookup, which contrasts by omission with the comparison and board-discovery siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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