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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely new context: the upstream scraping sources and the dual-mode behavior where supplying vacancy_id switches the result to include candidate matches.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and provenance before the optional mode. Every sentence carries information, though the phantom 'remuneration type' filter is wasted words.

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. However, it is unclear how vacancy_id interacts with the other filters (are they applied together or ignored?), and the advertised remuneration filter does not exist, leaving a small but real gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter dimensions and adds the vacancy_id behavior, but also advertises filtering by 'remuneration type' for which no parameter exists in the schema, a mild inconsistency rather than added clarity.

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 ('Get current board vacancies') plus the data provenance (Appoint Better Boards and IoD NZ), which is useful disambiguation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as search_board_candidates or get_board_pipeline, so the agent is left to infer the boundary.

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?

The description implies usage through its filters and the optional vacancy_id mode, but never states when to reach for this tool over search_board_candidates. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent must guess at the routing.

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