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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the listing is tenant-scoped, and says nothing about pagination behavior, response size, or how many postings are returned – behavior an agent would want for a listing call.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the platform and resource, with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity comes at the cost of detail captured in other dimensions.

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 a 5-parameter, tenant-scoped listing tool with 0% schema coverage needs the description to compensate for the undocumented parameters and usage context. It does not.

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 5 parameters (tenant, board, limit, offset, search). The description mentions 'tenant' and 'board' only as nouns in the summary sentence, giving no meaning for what identifies a board or how limit/offset/search behave.

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 (UKG Pro Recruiting job board listing) and names the vendor platform, which distinguishes it from the many sibling ATS board tools (jobs_workday_board, jobs_greenhouse_board, etc.). However it does not clarify what 'board' means as opposed to a posting/job-level tool, so the differentiation is partial.

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 guidance on when to use this board-listing tool versus sibling board tools or the job-detail tools, and no prerequisites or alternatives are named. The agent must infer selection purely from the vendor name in the tool name.

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