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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credit' and does not describe whether this is read-only, what fields are returned, how authentication works, or what errors might occur. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

The description is concise and puts the main action first, but it is poorly worded and grammatically awkward. 'Group: jobs' is an unnecessary fragment, and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' is useful but appended without clear structure. It is short, but it is not well-written or cleanly organized documentation.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this tool description leaves important gaps. It explains the general purpose and cost, but the agent still needs detail about whether jobId is mandatory, what the return shape is, and what behavior to expect if no related jobs exist. The description is minimally usable but not complete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema provides only a jobId string with an example but no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain that jobId identifies the source job whose people-also-viewed recommendations should be retrieved, nor does it clarify whether jobId is required. The phrase 'Group: jobs' does not compensate for this missing parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the core operation: retrieve related jobs that people also viewed, and the title 'People Also Viewed' supports this. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_api_v1_jobs_job_similar or get_api_v1_jobs_job_details, but the 'people also viewed' wording is specific enough to indicate a distinct resource. The fragment 'Group: jobs' adds little value.

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?

There is no guidance about when this tool should be used instead of sibling tools like get_api_v1_jobs_job_similar, get_api_v1_jobs_job_details, or get_api_v1_jobs_search. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so an agent must infer the intended use case from the name and title alone.

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