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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the scope constraint: only PUBLIC jobs, and only the field set category/city/state/date/ID are exposed. That tells the agent what it will and won't receive, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the return-field list second. Efficient with no filler; the repetition of 'public' is the only minor 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, filter, and returned fields — enough to call it correctly. Missing only pagination/limit or ordering behavior for 'recent'.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Saying 'optionally by city' does establish that the single parameter is an optional city filter, but adds no format, casing, or matching semantics beyond the property name.

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: returns recent public completed jobs, with the filterable dimension (city) called out. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_current_offers or get_company_info, which cover other data types, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 'recent public completed jobs, optionally by city' implies the use case and that the city filter is discretionary, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to an alternative. With no sibling covering the same resource, the practical risk is low, so this is implied rather than absent.

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