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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: newest-first ordering, the 'processing' status with a null score for in-flight offers, and that `archived` switches the read to a different collection entirely.

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 dense sentences, no filler. Output fields come first because they drive tool selection, then the ordering/status edge case, then the archive flag, with the escalation path (get_offer) last – a well front-loaded structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the brief field summary is exactly what an agent needs to pick this list tool over its siblings. Combined with the archive switch and the processing/null-score edge case, nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the load, and it does: `archived: true reads the archive instead` explains the flag's effect in plain terms and 'newest first' explains the ordering that `limit` paginates. It does not restate the 1-50 bound on `limit`, a minor omission.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List the job offers') with an explicit scope ('the user has had analysed'), plus an enumeration of the returned fields (company, role, base salary, health 0-10, verdict). It clearly separates itself from siblings get_offer (full verdict detail) and analyze_offer (which produces the analysis), so an agent can choose it without reading schemas.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: newest-first ordering, the `archived: true` variant, and an explicit pointer to get_offer(offer_id) when the full verdict, market comparison and negotiation scripts are needed. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. when no analysis exists yet), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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