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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that the output includes public page URLs, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as pagination or volume of results, though this is mitigated by annotations and the zero-parameter interface.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first defines the resource and output, the second states the intended usage. Every word earns its place and the key content is front-loaded.

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 no-argument, read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what is returned, with what metadata, and why it is useful. Annotations supply the safety and idempotence guarantees, and sibling contexts show this is the 'coverage lookup' tool distinct from job retrieval and subscriptions.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and it appropriately describes the tool's output instead.

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 names the specific resource—countries, cities, remote-in-country pages, and job roles HuntBoard covers—and states each entry includes its public page URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jobs and get_job, which focus on job lookup rather than coverage metadata.

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 says the tool is 'useful to pick locations and titles before searching,' giving clear timing and intent relative to searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before searching' context effectively signals when this tool should be selected over search_jobs.

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