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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Read-only, no token needed', the shape of each entry, and a remediation path for missing companies. It stops short of return-format/pagination notes, but the client_token param and offset param already handle auth and paging.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, return fields, and remediation. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the return-field enumeration is justified by the absence of an output 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the entry fields (name, board_url, platform, open_jobs), and it covers auth, the coverage-check use case, and how to add missing companies. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: query is framed as a coverage check with a concrete example, and board_url is explained as the value to pass to watch_jobs as url. That cross-tool parameter linkage is value the schema alone does not convey.

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+resource ('List the companies whose job boards Watchtower monitors') and immediately ties it to siblings by characterizing it as what search_jobs and watch_jobs without a url cover. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling search tools without opening any 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it (pass query to check whether a company is covered, e.g. "stripe") and routes to an alternative when a company is missing (watch its board URL or careers page to add it). Both a positive trigger and a fallback path are given.

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