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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose line: no note on what the lookup returns, whether it requires a network call, or failure behavior for unknown slugs.

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; the purpose and its input are stated immediately. It is terse to the point of leaving gaps, but nothing is wasted.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and for a one-parameter lookup it is roughly adequate. However, 'careers slug' remains undefined and no workflow context is given for a tool whose value depends on feeding its result into another sibling.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'Careers slug' usefully clarifies that the slug is a careers-page identifier rather than an arbitrary string, but gives no format, example, or sourcing hint to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (find) and resource (which ATS a company uses) plus the input concept (careers slug). This is distinguishable from the ATS-specific board tools, though it doesn't explicitly frame itself as the resolver that routes to them.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite many related siblings (jobs_greenhouse_board, jobs_lever_postings, datasets_jobs_companies). An agent must infer that this is a pre-step for resolving which board tool to call.

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