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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: an APIFY_TOKEN is required, calls consume Apify credits, and results are returned as a flat Clay-ready JSON row — cost and auth implications an agent cannot derive from annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and sources, followed by selection guidance and then cost/output notes. No filler; the only minor redundancy is re-listing categories that the schema enum already enumerates in full.

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 compensates by describing the return value (matched role counts and titles per category as flat JSON). Combined with the auth and credit disclosure, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only edge behavior like rate limits or failure modes is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the category concept and mentions custom keywords but does not explain company_domain formatting, the fallback flag, or the previous-run tracking parameters beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) plus resource (company job board) and names the five ATS sources covered (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workday, Rippling). It also declares the output shape, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back 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?

Tells the agent when this applies (scanning a company's board for roles in chosen categories) and how to select categories vs. custom keywords. It also surfaces the operational prerequisites (APIFY_TOKEN, Apify credit consumption). No exclusions or alternative tools are named, but none exist — there are no siblings.

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