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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the result contents (application URLs, publication revision) and the filtering behavior (excludes drafts and closed jobs), plus reinforces the read-only boundary with 'Never submits an application'.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first states what is returned and scoped, the second states the two boundaries (what is excluded, what is never done). Fully front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields (application URLs, publication revision). For a single-parameter read-only listing, the remaining gap is minor: no mention of result size, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but the JSON Schema pattern already encodes the slug format (lowercase, hyphen-separated). The description contributes the semantic that it must be an existing company slug rather than a name or query string, which is real but modest added meaning.

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 ('Read') and resource ('current published openings'), constrains scope to a 'known company slug', and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_companies and search_jobs by being company-scoped and publication-status-filtered. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 'for a known company slug' is a genuine precondition hint — it tells the agent it must already have a resolved slug (e.g., from list_companies) rather than a free-text query, which is what separates it from search_jobs. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it stops 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.