Find a company's ATS board

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the probing scope, verification requirement, and Workday limitation. It does not describe the return format, but that is less critical given the annotations and clear purpose.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core action; the second gives an exception and a direct pointer to an alternative. Front-loaded, efficient, and every word contributes.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main selection needs: what it probes, what to do with results, and what not to probe. It does not explain return values, but for a probe/resolution tool the guidance is adequate and the sibling context reinforces the workflow.

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 the schema's descriptions already document both companyName and extraSlugs. The description adds contextual meaning by linking companyName to the target slug and extraSlugs to 'candidates to probe,' but it does not add syntax or format details 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?

The description names the specific resource (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby), the action (probes for public board slug), and explicitly excludes Workday, clearly distinguishing from sibling add_company_board. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 explicitly states when this tool is appropriate (probing specific ATS providers) and provides an alternative ('find that URL on the employer's careers page and record it with add_company_board') for unsupported Workday. It also gives the crucial prerequisite: guesses must be verified before adding to companies.json.

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