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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful linkage to search_jobs but says nothing about return format, ordering, or whether the list is static; with a rich annotation set, this is adequate rather than exceptional.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key information (these are role values for search_jobs) is front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic — a lead verb would cost one word and remove the fragment feel.

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, the description needn't describe the returned structure, and no parameters exist to document, so almost nothing is missing. The only gap is that it doesn't hint the values are a fixed enumeration suitable for validation, but the output schema likely carries that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a nullary tool applies. The sentence correctly frames the output as input to another parameter rather than pretending there is an argument here.

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 states precisely what the tool returns — the set of role family values — and ties it to the sibling that consumes it (search_jobs' role parameter). It lacks an explicit verb like 'List', but the resource and scope are unambiguous, so an agent can distinguish it from get_job/get_company.

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?

By naming search_jobs and its 'role' argument, it tells the agent exactly when this tool is useful: before filtering jobs by role. It does not spell out exclusions or an explicit 'do not use for X', keeping it just below a 5.

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