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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is disclosing the four return metrics and the fact that the numbers mirror the keywordise.com homepage measurement. That is meaningful return-shape context, particularly since there is no output schema, though nothing is said about freshness beyond the 30-day window or rate considerations.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The second sentence, however, is a long clause-chained run-on ('...how many of them Keywordise applies to start to finish without the person doing anything') that is harder to parse than the payload warrants.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and simple read annotations, the description supplies the missing piece - what the returned counts actually are. It is largely complete for an agent deciding whether to call this before quoting a number, though the enumerated metrics could be presented more crisply.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: aggregate counts of the live job pool (total live jobs, last-30-day finds, employer count, auto-applyable count). This clearly separates it from sibling list/search tools like search_live_jobs and list_matching_jobs, which return job entities rather than counts.

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?

It explicitly names the trigger scenario ('how many jobs are there', 'before quoting a number'), which tells the agent when to call it. It stops short of naming a when-not condition or pointing to an alternative tool for counts vs. listings.

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