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 genuinely non-redundant context: credential-free access, public feed, and that results are normalized to the shared Job shape with detail inline.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool lists, followed by the filter options, the parameter derivation, the auth nature, and the sibling 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, filterability, the required param format, credential-free access, and the sibling alternative, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by spelling out the company parameter's format: it is the Teamtailor subdomain taken from https://{company}.teamtailor.com/, which clarifies how to derive the required argument.

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 (Lists) and resource (a company's public Teamtailor board feed, JSON Feed) normalized to the shared Job shape. It explicitly names the sibling jobs_greenhouse_board, so an agent can distinguish provider without opening further 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?

Provides clear context: credential-free public ATS feed, and routes to jobs_greenhouse_board for the Greenhouse equivalent. It lacks an explicit 'use this when' (e.g. when the careers URL is on teamtailor.com) or any when-not exclusion, so it stops short of full selection guidance.

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