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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: results conform to a shared Job shape and pagination via limit/offset is capped at 10 per page. That pagination cap is meaningful operational information beyond the annotations, though auth/tenant-resolution constraints are not addressed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the pagination and routing details following in logical order. Efficient overall, though the middle sentence packs three separate facts (shapes, pagination, cap) densely.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers required inputs, optional filters, pagination behavior and the path to full details. Complete for calling the tool, with only auth/permission prerequisites left unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tenant, domain, query, location, limit and offset. The description restates required vs. optional roles and the page cap, which is largely duplicative of the schema's own limit note, so it adds only marginal semantic value. 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 (List) and resource (current openings on a public Eightfold AI board), plus the required tenant/domain scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the detail sibling by naming jobs_eightfold_job, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly positions this as the listing entry point and tells the agent to use the returned job ID with jobs_eightfold_job for the full description. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., cross-tenant or aggregated job search), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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