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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by disclosing the two return modes: no topic yields the overview plus the topic list, a topic yields that section. It does not state output size or how to recover from an invalid topic string, but the essential call-shape behavior is disclosed.

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?

Single front-loaded paragraph that leads with the trigger and then the return modes. The 'job_search_guide:' prefix restates the name and the mid-sentence topic run-on ('asking the user, writing requests, choosing tools...') is dense, but every clause carries information.

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 one-optional-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and both return branches — essentially everything needed to call it correctly. Only minor details such as response length or handling of an unrecognized topic are absent.

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 enum values are already listed in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the semantics of omitting the parameter (overview + list of topics) versus supplying one (that section), which is behavior the schema cannot express.

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 resource concretely — 'the usage guide of this server' — and enumerates the topics it covers (asking the user, writing requests, choosing tools, reading results, showing the shortlist, checking a company, rules). That clearly separates it from the six sibling tools, which are all job/company data operations. It is not a verb+resource phrasing, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: 'Call it before the first search and when unsure how to go on.' That is both a timing rule and a fallback condition, plus an implied when-not (once oriented and confident, proceed to the sibling search tools). Nothing is left to inference about when to reach for it.

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