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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful context (credential-free public ATS JSON, results normalized to a shared Job shape, list-vs-detail split). It omits pagination or result-count behavior, which a bulk listing tool would ideally mention.

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 purpose, then constraints, then the sibling routing; four sentences with little waste. Minor overlap between the normalization statement and the detail-fetch note, but nothing that needs cutting.

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 need no explanation. The description covers source scope, filter semantics, credential requirements, and the sibling boundary, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, and the description largely restates them (department, location, remote). The careers-URL template for the company slug is a small added clarification, but it duplicates the schema's 'Workable account slug (careers URL)' note, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 ('Lists a company's public Workable postings'), names the source (Workable ATS), and specifies normalization to the shared Job shape plus optional filters. It clearly distinguishes itself from jobs_workable_posting, so an agent can select it without opening a 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 routes between siblings: 'Detail (full description) is fetched per job via the single-posting endpoint' and 'Use jobs_workable_posting to get a single Workable posting.' It also signals the tool is credential-free public data, removing prerequisite uncertainty.

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