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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results contain public profile info, an agency contact is provided, and hiring always routes through the licensed agency. These are useful process constraints 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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, summarize filtering, and close with the hiring workflow. Every sentence contributes distinct value and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, filters, return content, and the required agency-mediated hiring process. It omits details like pagination or default limit, but those are already implied by the schema and annotations, so the description is largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's 'filter by nationality and/or position' matches schema properties but adds no new details about formatting, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Browse' and a clearly scoped resource: domestic workers listed as available through licensed GCC agencies, with explicit role examples. The subject matter makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as search_agencies and get_salary_benchmarks.

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?

Provides clear context for use (browsing available workers with nationality/position filters) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention situations where search_agencies or verify_agency_licence would be more appropriate. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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