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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a pure read operation ('Returns the definition') with no side effects, parameters, or mutation. For a trivial lookup tool there is little hidden behavior to disclose; the only minor gap is the lack of detail about the return structure, but nothing about the tool's behavior is misleading or opaque.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core fact — what the tool returns — is front-loaded in sentence one, and the contextual qualifier about the rating scale adds meaningful differentiation without bloat.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema reference tool, the description is nearly sufficient: an agent knows exactly what it gets and why that matters. A small gap is that it doesn't hint at what each level definition contains (e.g., descriptions, examples, criteria), which would help an agent anticipate the return value, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Baseline 4 applies because the tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Schema coverage is trivially 100% since the properties object is empty. The description needs no parameter explanations.

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource (definitions of Level's four AI-impact levels), and names the exact items (AI Level 1 to AI Level 4). The added scope statement — 'the scale every job listing is rated against' — clearly separates it from siblings like get_job and search_jobs, which operate on individual listings rather than the rating scale itself.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. However, the clause 'the scale every job listing on jobsbylevel.com is rated against' implies the tool should be consulted when an agent needs to interpret AI levels attached to job listings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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