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 nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination, result volume, rate limits, or whether the listing is live-only versus archived, which matters for a job board endpoint.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of the details an agent needs.

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 explained. But for a 4-parameter, 0%-coverage listing tool with no usage routing and no parameter meaning, the definition is materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at the 'company' parameter and says nothing about remote, location, or department (e.g., whether they are exact-match strings, slugs, or free text), leaving the agent unable to use them correctly.

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?

The phrase 'Lever postings listing for a company' names the verb (list), resource (Lever postings), and scope (a company), so the purpose is discernible. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling jobs_lever_posting (singular) or jobs_greenhouse_board/jobs_workable_postings, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which variant to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., what a valid 'company' identifier looks like), and no mention of alternatives such as jobs_lever_posting or jobs_company_search. The agent is left to infer all selection logic.

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