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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: it discloses the returned fields (title, company, city, rank, posted date, LinkedIn link) and the coupling requirement between place and level, which is more than the annotations provide.

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 resource definition, then the filtering rule, then the return shape. Mostly tight, though the 'same list the arkerah map shows' clause is a bit of scene-setting that doesn't carry invocation weight.

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 output schema, the description properly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and all three parameters are documented. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note the default result count behavior for the unfiltered case.

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 100%, so place, level and limit are already documented with examples and defaults. The description reinforces the place+level coupling and restates the ISO-code example, adding slight clarity but little that is not already in the schema – baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource – the person's own ranked job list – and ties it to a known artifact ('the same list the arkerah map shows'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like job_details (single job) or count_jobs (aggregate). The verb is implicit rather than stated, but the retrieval purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a real usage rule: filter by place only when place and level are supplied together, otherwise return all jobs with a known town. However, it never names or contrasts against the obvious alternatives (job_details, count_jobs), so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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