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 real behavioral context beyond that: it returns only non-empty matches, includes provider plus open-role count, and excludes Workday tenant-specific boards — a meaningful scope constraint. It stops short of noting rate limits or probing failure behavior.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, exclusion, and routing to siblings. It is nearly complete; a hint about what a valid slug looks like or what an empty result implies would close the remaining gap.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already fully documents 'slug'. The description's only addition is the 'careers slug' qualifier, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('Probe supported public ATS providers for a careers slug') and immediately bounds the output ('non-empty board matches with provider and open-role count'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by name and explicitly excludes Workday tenant-specific boards, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not cover.

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?

It names two alternatives with conditions: jobs_companies for known company boards and jobs_greenhouse_board when the provider is known to be Greenhouse. The intended use of this tool (provider unknown / slug discovery) is strongly implied by contrast but never stated as an explicit rule, and no other exclusions beyond Workday are given.

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