list_free_company_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds meaningful, non-annotation detail: it states this is a public board, requires a board ID from a careers link, and clarifies the tool's scope. These are behavioral/constraint contexts beyond the structured data.

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 zero filler. The main action is stated immediately, the input constraint is concise and front-loaded, and the scope note is added without repetition. It serves as a clear and effective model card.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only explicitly handles the board parameter. The output schema covers the return shape, but the relation of provider to the board, pagination semantics, and what 'public ATS board' actually returns (without opening the schema) are not explained. It's adequate for a simple read, but leaves some practical gaps given no parameter descriptions elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the burden of explaining parameters falls heavily on the description. The description clarifies the board parameter ('from its careers link, not an arbitrary URL') but it says nothing about the provider, limit, offset, or region parameters. The parameters themselves have types/enums and defaults, but the semantic link between provider and board is missing. This is a substantial gap.

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 contains a specific verb and resource: 'Read a known company's public ATS board.' It also makes clear it is not a general search ('Does not search all companies'), which distinguishes it specifically from the sibling search_free_jobs. This provides agents enough to know when this tool is appropriate 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?

The description explicitly states what board ID to supply ('from its careers link, not an arbitrary URL') and gives an exclusion: 'Does not search all companies.' It implies the agent should use a broad search (presumably search_free_jobs) when the company is not known. It doesn't name the sibling tool directly, but the exclusionary language provides enough context to route correctly.

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