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 useful context beyond that: postings are 'public', descriptions are inline, and compensation appears only 'when published'. It doesn't discuss pagination or result limits, which is a minor gap.

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, both front-loaded with the capability first and the prerequisite second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 needn't be detailed, and the single parameter is fully documented. The description adds purpose, the ATS prerequisite, and content expectations, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents the single parameter as the 'Gem vanity URL slug (careers URL)'. The description restates this ('The company is its Gem vanity URL slug') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List a company's public Gem job-board postings') and names the platform (Gem) that distinguishes it from other ATS board tools like jobs_greenhouse_board or jobs_lever_postings. An agent can tell what it returns (postings with inline descriptions and compensation) without opening the 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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite workflow: 'use jobs_company_search to identify the ATS and board URL first.' This routes the agent to a sibling before calling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., other ATS boards), but the ATS-specific routing is clear.

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