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 real behavioral context beyond that: the record is a composite carrying LCA filing evidence and tech-stack hints, and those are only present 'when available', which warns the agent the payload is conditional rather than fixed. It stops short of describing freshness, coverage limits, or why a record might lack those fields.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and payload are front-loaded before the routing advice, and every clause carries information 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?

With a single required param, an output schema that already documents the return shape, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is purpose plus routing — both fully discharged. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the sole 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as the dataset board id. The description restates that it takes a dataset `id` but adds no format, source, or how-to-obtain-it detail beyond what the schema and the sibling routing already imply, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Fetch) plus resource (one discovered ATS company-board record) and even characterizes the payload: recent public LCA filing evidence and tech-stack hints. It distinguishes itself from datasets_jobs_item, which is explicitly described as a single job posting, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use datasets_jobs_companies or datasets_jobs_search to find boards, and datasets_jobs_item for one job posting. That is a clear when-to-use-this vs. alternatives statement with the selection condition attached.

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