company_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: some large employers use custom pages and may legitimately return an empty job list, which is a caveat an agent would otherwise misread as failure.

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?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by Args and a Note section that is scannable. The company example string is slightly long but is doing real disambiguation work, so little is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both input parameters are fully described. The custom-page caveat covers the main edge case; only pagination depth/limits are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter listing 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well. It documents both `company` (accepts a full URL or a 'slug/C-id' path, with a concrete example and where those identifiers come from) and `page` (1-based start), leaving no ambiguity about accepted formats.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'List open jobs of one employer.' The agent can immediately tell this apart from get_job (single job) and search_jobs (query-based search) without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to search_jobs as the fallback when a large employer with a custom-designed page returns no jobs, and points out that the company slug+C-id appear in search_jobs/get_job results. Clear context is given, though the primary 'when to prefer this over search_jobs' condition is only implied.

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