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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the aggregated snapshot contents and the crucial caveat that provider-specific identifier fields are not interchangeable, which is a genuine usage gotcha not encoded in annotations.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the identifier constraint plus sibling routing following. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, key output dimensions, identifier handling, and one alternative. It could be stronger by clarifying how to map each provider to its identifier field or noting the other board siblings, but for a 10-param tool it is largely complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that the correct identifier field (board, company, org, tenant/site, host, domain) must match the chosen provider, a relationship the per-field schema descriptions do not express, adding meaningful selection guidance.

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 ('Summarize') and resource ('one company's public ATS board') and enumerates the exact outputs (open-role totals, department/location/title breakdowns, remote share, roles added in 7/30 days). This distinguishes it from the many per-provider board/listings siblings that return raw listings rather than aggregates.

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 clear context (aggregate hiring snapshot) and routes the agent to an alternative, jobs_greenhouse_board, for browsing listings. However it only names one of the many jobs_* board siblings and never explicitly states when NOT to use this tool, so the when-to-use signal is helpful but partial.

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