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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: per-user visibility ('Only this user can see jobs they add') and that the operation is 'Free', both of which affect an agent's decision and are not in 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries purpose, scope, privacy and cost with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers what is created, who sees it, and the cost. Missing pieces are minor: no note on duplicate handling or on the minimum 60-character description requirement that could cause a failed call.

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 33% — only source_url and description carry descriptions — so the description should compensate but adds no field-level detail. Mitigating this, the undocumented fields (title, company, location, is_remote) are self-evident by name, and 'pasted job ad' loosely maps to the description field, keeping it at minimum-viable rather than poor.

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 verb and resource are specific ('Adds a job ... to their Litjob account'), and the qualifier 'the user found somewhere else (for example a pasted job ad)' implicitly separates it from save_job, which handles jobs already on the platform. It stops short of naming that sibling outright, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 'found somewhere else (for example a pasted job ad)' gives a usable trigger for when this tool applies. However, it never names save_job as the alternative for in-platform jobs, nor states any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the job already exists).

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