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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of pagination, whether the board is fetched from the public Ashby API, rate limits, or that the response is a feed of postings. It also fails to disclose that the optional compensation flag changes the payload shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the efficiency borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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-value detail is not required. But the definition omits what 'listing' returns (postings vs. board metadata), leaves both parameters undocumented, and provides no usage trigger. For a 2-param board endpoint with a required org identifier and an opt-in compensation flag, that is incomplete.

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 0% and neither property is described. The description says 'for an organization' which loosely implies the 'org' parameter is an org identifier (slug vs. name unstated), but it says nothing about 'include_compensation' – the option that materially changes what each posting carries. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 resource ('Ashby job board listing') tied to a named ATS, but 'listing' is ambiguous – it could mean listing jobs, listing the board's metadata, or fetching board config. Siblings like jobs_greenhouse_board and jobs_lever_postings suggest the board family lists postings for an org, but the phrase alone does not disambiguate.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative, no prerequisite context. An agent has to infer from the name that this is for listing Ashby job postings for an org, with no contrast to jobs_ashby_job (which does not exist yet) or other board tools.

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