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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses the four-week radar scope, the important under-30-postings threshold where enough_data is false and only the count is given, and the invalid_payload error cases. This gives an agent substantial behavioral context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and is not padded with irrelevant material. It is dense and run-on in places, especially the long list of returned metrics, but each clause generally adds useful scope or caveat 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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and one nested input object, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool returns, its radar-only scope, the minimum-data threshold, and the error conditions. Nothing essential to a correct call appears to be missing.

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 schema signal reports 0% description coverage, and the description adds only limited parameter guidance: role words are implied by the invalid_payload note, and country/everywhere is mentioned. The nested schema itself documents role and country, so the description does not substantially compensate for the coverage gap beyond what the schema already says.

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 clearly states a specific resource: a four-week job-market snapshot for a role, optionally scoped to one country or everywhere. It distinguishes the aggregate radar view from the whole market, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as get_radar_matches or search_vacancies.

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 clear usage context: what the radars found in the last four weeks, one country or everywhere, and the caveat that it does not cover the whole market. It also warns that under 30 postings only the count is returned, though it does not name alternative tools for different needs.

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