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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real context: results are sorted newest-first, salary is null when the site publishes none and salary_note comes from the career page, and the connector never receives personal data or submits applications. API version (v3) is disclosed. It stops short of describing pagination or how many positions are returned.

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 and what it returns, followed by ordering, then the application-policy caveat and null-salary semantics. It is a single dense block rather than a run-on of filler; every sentence carries information, though the field enumeration in the first sentence is long.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields and the newest-first ordering plus salary/salary_note null semantics are exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Filtering behavior is left to the fully documented schema, and only pagination/volume behavior is missing.

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% and all three parameters are enums with documented values, so the schema carries this dimension. The description echoes location values (Georgioupolis, Chania) but in the context of returned fields, not filter semantics, and it says nothing about the lang or department filters beyond 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource pair (open positions/jobs at Corissia Resorts hotels in Crete) and enumerates the fields returned (title, summary, departments, location, employment type, salary, date posted, url). It never names the sibling get_job, so an agent must infer that this is the list view versus the single-position view.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it's clearly a browse/search endpoint, and the note that 'applications are made only on the page of the position' clarifies what the tool cannot do. There is no explicit guidance on when to call list_jobs versus get_job, and no statement about pagination or result limits that would shape invocation.

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