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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read of a closed dataset, so the description's value is in result behavior – and it delivers: a hard cap of 10 items, the returned fields (company, area, salary only when published, link), and the source board. It omits how far back 'newest' reaches and the ordering/tie-breaking, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: the result scope and cap come first, the returned fields second, and the example last. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and full safety annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly what is missing – the return shape and the 10-item limit. Only the recency window behind 'newest' and whether results can be empty are left unstated, which is a minor deficiency.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that the keyword matches title, company, area or ad. The description's single added contribution is a concrete example value ('data engineer'), which is mildly useful but does not extend the semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('newest English-language jobs in the Amsterdam area'), names the data source ('our job board'), and bounds the result ('up to 10'). An agent can distinguish this immediately from siblings like recent_news, whats_on, or net_salary without opening the schema.

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 by the content ('newest jobs in Amsterdam') and an example query is given, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for related queries (e.g. salary questions routed to net_salary). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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