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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds real value by naming the data domains and implying freshness ('Live', 'active'), but says nothing about update cadence/lag, geographic coverage limits, result volume, or whether salary figures are normalized or as-disclosed. For a read-only lookup these are moderate rather than critical gaps.

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 data facets, then usage and exclusions. Slight redundancy: the first sentence already lists 'active corporate job openings', and the 'Use when' clause repeats much of that list, costing a few words without new information.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema data lookup, the description covers what the tool sources and what questions it answers. Missing only freshness/cadence and result-size expectations, which matter but are secondary for a read-only retrieval 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% and both parameters are documented in-schema with examples, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates the scoping intent ('for a specific company or role') but adds no format or matching semantics (e.g., fuzzy vs exact company-name matching) beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a dense, specific enumeration of the resource and its facets: live corporate job openings, hiring velocity, tech stack mentions, disclosed salary ranges. It names two concrete siblings it is not (getRegionalSalaryBenchmarks, getCorporateDirectorsUbo), so an agent can discriminate it from nearby tools 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?

Explicit 'Use when retrieving...' clause lists the qualifying signals (active openings, MoM hiring velocity, tech skills, remote policy, salary ranges), and an explicit 'Do not use for...' clause routes to two named alternatives. Both the positive and negative cases are covered.

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