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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning that results include 'active job counts' and that filtering is possible by name, company type, or HQ country—details not present in the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main verb and object appear first, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the rich output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient for a listing endpoint. It does not explain pagination or sorting, but those are well-documented in the schema. The description adequately scopes the tool's function and filter capabilities.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes three of the filter parameters (q, company_type, country) but does not add any syntax or format details beyond the schema. It adds marginal value but does not elevate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a clear verb ('Browse') and identifies the resource ('directory of recruiting companies and agencies'), and specifies the added value ('active job counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company (single company) and search_jobs (jobs), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description frames this as a directory-browsing tool, which clearly implies listing use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear given sibling tool names. A score of 4 reflects the clear context without explicit exclusions.

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