Open jobs from Greenhouse job boards

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, non-destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context on top: pricing ($0.001 per job), the maxCostUsd charge cap, server-side defaults (maxTotalJobs=25, includeDescription=false), and an affiliation disclaimer. It also explains the token trade-off behind disabling descriptions, which is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the 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 purpose, then input modes, then filters, then cost and defaults — the ordering matches how an agent needs the information. Dense but every sentence carries operative detail; the only filler is the 'not affiliated with Greenhouse' line and the Actor URL.

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 19-parameter, no-required-parameter scraper with no output schema, the description covers the decision-critical pieces: cost, caps, defaults, demo behavior and mode selection. What it omits is any sense of the shape of a returned job record, which leaves the agent guessing what fields come back without a description included.

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 still adds value by surfacing the cost-relevant defaults, the reason includeDescription is off (token savings), and a compact list of the filtering knobs (keywords, excludeKeywords, locations, remoteOnly, postedWithinDays). It does not resolve the mild tension between 'default maxTotalJobs=25' and the schema note that an empty field means 0/no limit.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource (open jobs from Greenhouse boards) and immediately scopes the source to companies hiring through Greenhouse, which cleanly separates it from lever_jobs, ashby_jobs, workday_jobs and search_remote_jobs by ATS. An agent can pick this tool without opening the 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?

It explains the two operating modes explicitly — pass companies (slug, boards.greenhouse.io URL, or careers page) or set searchDirectory=true to use the 147-board directory — plus a documented zero-input demo fallback. It never states when to prefer a sibling ATS tool or when this tool is the wrong choice, so exclusions are missing.

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