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

Annotations cover readOnly and openWorld, so the safety profile is set. The description adds useful context beyond that: the access model ('Credential-free public ATS JSON') and return-content hint ('detail is inline'). It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the required-parameter interpretation, then the alternative. Every sentence 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 explained, and the description still notes data is inline. Combined with the URL guidance, auth context, and sibling pointer, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for the required parameter by spelling out the URL template ('https://{company}.recruitee.com/'), which helps an agent derive the correct value. The optional filters are only named, not elaborated, so it doesn't reach 5.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Lists a company's public Recruitee offers') plus scope ('optionally filtered by department, location, or remote'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling jobs_recruitee_offer (single offer), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 names the alternative ('Use jobs_recruitee_offer to get a single Recruitee offer') and the condition that selects it. This matches the 'when-to-use vs alternative' bar directly.

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