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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: only online adverts are returned, page size is capped at 20, filter-only searches sort newest-first, and keyword searches rank by relevance favouring recent adverts. It stops short of describing cursor semantics or edge cases.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope, then result behavior, then the sibling routing. No filler.

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 values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, ranking, pagination and the get_job handoff. For a 16-parameter tool it could say a bit more about combining filters (e.g. role requiring category), but the schema carries that detail.

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 69%, so the schema documents most parameters, including the important query syntax and role/category dependency. The description only gestures at 'keywords and filters' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with geographic scope (Switzerland and Liechtenstein) and explicitly routes the agent to get_job for full job details, distinguishing it from that sibling. An agent can tell what it does 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?

Names the alternative (get_job) for full descriptions and signals the keyword/filter search context. However, it does not say when to prefer this over the sibling `search`, nor state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the get_job pointer.

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