Resolve company names to Lever boards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it reports every instance that answered and probes names without reading a single board, clarifying the operational behavior and lightweight nature beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second providing usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of structured data.

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?

Given the simple parameter schema, comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage differentiation, and behavioral traits. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 single parameter 'names' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It aligns with the schema by referring to 'company names' and 'Lever site names', but adds no additional syntax or format information, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('turn') and resource ('company names' to 'Lever site names'), clearly stating the mapping action and output. It also distinguishes itself from search_jobs by noting that this tool checks which companies are on Lever without reading boards.

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 states when to use this tool versus search_jobs: search_jobs resolves names on its own, while this tool is for checking which of several companies are on Lever. It also explains the efficiency advantage (probes without reading boards).

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