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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added context is the useful part: the 50-per-call batch ceiling and the tri-state result model (open, closed, not_found) with closure/last-seen timestamps. It does not explain why the tool is non-idempotent (statuses are point-in-time and change), which would have closed the remaining gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, then the input source, batch limit, and return shape. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as the point-in-time nature of the results or how not_found should be interpreted.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'slugs' and the 50-item limit. The description only restates that the identifiers come from search results' slug field, adding little beyond the structured definition.

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 and resource ('check whether postings are still open') scoped to slugs carried by search results, which cleanly separates it from fetch/get_job style lookups in the sibling list. An agent can tell this is a status probe, not a detail retrieval.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Use before acting on a saved shortlist.' It does not name a when-not condition or point to a specific alternative (e.g. get_job for full details), 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.