Find Board

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: results are memoized for the process lifetime, which tells the agent repeat calls may return cached data. It stops short of describing what happens on a miss or how many network sources are hit by default beyond the schema's own note.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and each carrying weight — the LinkedIn/Greenhouse example clarifies return multiplicity and the caching sentence carries the only behavioral disclosure. Slightly more than strictly needed, but no filler.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the schema covers parameter formats. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (no boards found, whether the check is exhaustive or best-effort), which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 both parameters (company, sources) are already documented with formats and defaults in the schema. The description reinforces the multi-source reporting behavior but adds no new parameter-level syntax or constraint, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find which job boards carry a company's postings,' with the multi-source semantics made concrete via the Greenhouse/LinkedIn example. It does not name any sibling (e.g. source_status, search_jobs) to distinguish itself from, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what the tool does but never says when to reach for it versus siblings like search_jobs, search_many, or source_status. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternative-routing guidance, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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