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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the endpoint is 'Credential-free public ATS JSON' and paging works via limit/offset. It stops short of describing pagination termination or return shape, but that is largely covered by the output schema.

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 the core action, then paging, then parameter provenance, then the sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place; the URL template is dense but high-value. Minor packing of multiple facts into one sentence.

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. The description covers the action, paging, credential requirements, and parameter sourcing, leaving little an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining where tenant, datacenter, and site come from (the careers URL template https://{tenant}.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/{site}), which is meaning the schema does not convey.

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'), resource ('Workday (CXS) postings'), and scope ('public', 'paged via limit/offset'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling jobs_workday_job, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use jobs_workday_job to get a single Workday job'), which routes the agent for the single-item case. It gives clear context for when this tool applies but no explicit when-not or edge conditions beyond that.

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