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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the key edge case (unknown org returns an empty board, no 404) and that it is credential-free public JSON. These are non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose and scoping edge case lead. Minor redundancy with the schema (org is the Ashby slug from the careers URL) keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the edge-case and credential notes, the definition gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description clarifies include_compensation's effect on returned data, but adds little beyond the marked-up schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (Lists) and resource (an organization's public Ashby board postings) and clarifies the inline detail returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the many ATS siblings by naming Ashby specifically.

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?

Names an explicit alternative (jobs_greenhouse_board) and its condition, and explains the org parameter source (careers URL slug). It stops short of helping the agent decide when to pick an Ashby vs other ATS boards, but gives clear context for its niche.

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