Compare published pay on one board

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

Despite having readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds non-obvious behavior: 'Nothing is converted between currencies, summed across components or averaged' and 'a third of the postings publish no range at all, and they are named rather than dropped.' This is valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then crucial caveats. Every clause earns its place with zero waste.

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 and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavioral quirks. It doesn't mention filtering options like team or department, but those are documented in the schema, so for a comparison tool this is adequate.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover the parameters well (~75% coverage), including explaining component and interval behavior. The description reinforces the 'one component/period at a time' rule but doesn't add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Put the pay ranges of one Ashby board side by side') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_jobs or get_job. It also provides scope constraints (one component, one period), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: to compare pay ranges across postings on a board, with explicit constraints on components and periods. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools are distinct.

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