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

Annotations already supply readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: output is 'names only' and contains no SEO HTML. This helps the agent anticipate response content without relying solely on the output schema.

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 concise sentences, each with distinct value: contents, relation to search_jobs, and an important exclusion. No filler or redundancy.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how those values are used by search_jobs, and a key caveat about work_arrangement ids. An agent has enough to decide to call this and interpret results 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details; baseline 4 applies since there is nothing to clarify.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and enumerates exact taxonomy categories (function, discipline, region, work-environment ids; experience, contract, work-arrangement enums). It also ties these to search_jobs filter fields, making the tool's role distinct from sibling tools like list_functions.

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?

The description explicitly states that search_jobs consumes these ids and enums, which is the primary use case, and notes that work_arrangement ids are labels, not filters. This is clear context, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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