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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding distinct operational traits: the index is global rather than open-jobs-only, an identifier can match zero jobs, city display omits state, and results may be shorter than limit.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The identifier formats and the search_jobs linkage are front-loaded before the secondary caveats about coverage and list length.

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 correctly spends its budget spelling out the identifier formats returned and the caveats about global index coverage and truncated lists. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 50% (only query is documented in the schema). The description adds the nuance that the returned list can be shorter than limit, which informs how to read the limit parameter, but it does not define limit's upper bound (25) or its default behavior in the description itself.

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 (resolve) and resource (free-text place name) and gives the exact output format it produces (country-XX, state-XX-YY, city-XX-YY-name). It clearly distinguishes itself from search_jobs by naming it as the consumer of the results.

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 description makes the use case explicit: this is the tool you call first to get identifiers that search_jobs accepts. It does not frame explicit when-not conditions, but the routing to search_jobs is unambiguous enough that an agent knows where this fits in a workflow.

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