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 that results follow the 'shared Job shape', which helps, but says nothing about pagination, board-token validity, or rate limits for a live ATS board.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded. Slight redundancy between 'using its board slug' and 'when you know the Greenhouse board name', but nothing is wasted at the level of a problem.

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, annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description carries what it must: what is listed, the input identity (board slug), and the routing to job detail. It lacks only pagination/count behavior, which is minor here.

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% – both token and content are documented in the schema. The description only echoes the token concept ('using its board slug') and adds no format or syntax detail for either parameter, so 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 concrete verb and resource with scope: 'List current openings from a company's Greenhouse ATS board using its board slug.' It clearly separates this list operation from the downstream single-job lookup, though it never names that sibling tool or distinguishes itself from other ATS board tools.

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 a clear precondition ('use this when you know the Greenhouse board name') and routes the agent to the next tool ('pass a job ID to the Greenhouse job detail tool'). No explicit when-not or alternative for cases where the board slug is unknown, but the context is solid.

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