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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the daily scan/digest effect, that it is instant, reversible, and quota-free, and that it returns the resulting state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, and every sentence adds usable information (state behavior, alternative, reversibility, return). Slightly verbose with the quoted phrase, but nothing is wasted.

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 spelled out; the description still notes that the resulting state is returned. Combined with annotations and the single boolean param, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and the description conveys the on/off semantics that map directly to `enabled`. The nested schema property also carries a description, so the field meaning is well covered; no additional syntax is needed for a boolean switch.

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 (turn automatic job search on/off) and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling start_radar_scan by contrasting the always-on daily scan with on-demand scanning. An agent can identify the tool 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?

Explicitly describes both states and their consequences (daily scan + digest vs. doing nothing), names the alternative (start_radar_scan works on demand), and ties the tool to the user intent 'find me jobs automatically'. When-to-use and the alternative path are both covered.

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