find_board

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral caveat not in the structured fields: a guessed name may match the wrong company, so sample titles should be checked first. That is useful domain insight, though auth/rate-limit context is absent.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the caveat, then routing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return format needn't be explained, annotations carry the safety profile, and the description supplies the pitfall caveat plus sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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% and the single 'company' param is fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't carry parameter detail. It restates 'by name or by a job/careers link' but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Find a company's job board by name or by a job/careers link.' It also names the resulting scope ('entries for the watchlist'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_boards and add_board without the agent needing to open any 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?

Explicitly routes: 'Use it before add_board; to track one job from its link, use add_application instead.' This gives both the when (before adding) and named alternatives for adjacent intents.

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