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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the skills list is only an 'alphabetical sample' of 'currently observed' values, which warns the agent the set is partial and time-varying rather than complete or stable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumeration of returned key types arrives immediately. It could be split to add a routing hint, but nothing present is wasted.

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, return shape needn't be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile; what remains needed is the linkage to search_jobs and whether key sets change over time (only the skills sample is flagged as dynamic). The definition is close to complete, with that workflow linkage the one gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related claims are made or needed.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact resource: accepted location, category, seniority and employment keys plus a skills sample. An agent can tell this is the filter-vocabulary tool rather than a job lookup like get_job or a query like search_jobs, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'accepted' hints these keys are the valid inputs for a job search, but the description never states 'call this before search_jobs to obtain valid filter values' or any when-not condition. An agent must infer the workflow rather than being routed to it.

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