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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds useful context about return values (structured records, salary in KRW, null semantics) beyond the schema. However, it does not explain pagination or rate limits, and it does not contradict annotations. The behavioral disclosure is adequate given 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the filter dimensions without unnecessary verbiage. It is concise and structured for quick scanning, providing all essential information in one sentence.

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?

Given the complexity of 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete by summarizing the filter dimensions and noting the return structure. It could mention pagination or result ordering, but it covers the main aspects needed to call the tool effectively. The annotation coverage helps, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 47%, and the description provides a high-level list of filter dimensions but does not detail each parameter's semantics. Many parameters have enums with descriptions in the schema, so the description adds minimal value beyond that. It does mention 'minimum salary' snapping behavior, which is helpful, but overall it does not compensate fully for the low coverage.

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 tool filters the live LucyESL job board and enumerates the main filter dimensions (region, age, housing, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job (fetching a single job) and search (generic search) by specifying it filters the board.

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 explains what it filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as salary_stats or disclosure_stats. It implies usage for job searching, but there are no clear exclusions or conditions for sibling tools. Still, the coverage of filter dimensions provides context for appropriate use.

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