check_jobs_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: a 50-slug batch limit and the possible per-posting outcomes (open, closed, not_found) including closure timing or last-seen-live information.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core action and batch limit are front-loaded, followed immediately by the workflow guidance and return semantics.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description provides enough: what it checks, the batch limit, when to use it, and what each posting response can contain. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the slugs are the public_slug values returned by search results, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Posting slugs' label.

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 and resource: check whether postings are still open. It identifies the slug source (public_slug carried by search results) and distinguishes this from search or job-detail tools by focusing on open/closed/not_found status.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use before presenting a shortlist or acting on a saved one. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion, but the timing guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when this belongs in a workflow.

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