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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: default page size of 1000, pagination mechanics, and that meta.total_count carries the total. It stops short of rate-limit or auth details.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then filters, then pagination and endpoint. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 14-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned field set and the meta.total_count envelope, and covers filtering and pagination. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches semantics by labelling `include` values as 'heavy fields' with examples (counters, description, salary, location_ids) and by flagging defaults for limit/page.

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 (company's jobs), explicitly reconciles Recruitee's 'offers' terminology, and enumerates the fields returned. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_offer (single job) and list_candidates.

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?

Explains how to use it: filter by status/department/location/recruiter/hiring manager/tag, add heavy fields via `include`, and paginate with limit+page. It does not explicitly contrast with get_offer or list_candidates, but the listing context is unambiguous.

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