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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are aggregated/derived (counts, medians, top skills) and that the query interpretation is echoed back, which is a modest behavioral signal. It says nothing about latency, caching freshness of 'live' data, or failure behavior when too few matches exist.

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, front-loaded with what the agent gets back, followed by the input contract. No filler; the awkward 'with how the request was understood' clause still carries real information about an output field.

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 output schema, describing the return payload inline is exactly the right compensation and largely succeeds. However, for a tool with a deeply nested filters object and only 20% schema text, the definition is thin on how the nested filter values should be formed, and it does not say what happens when the market has zero or very few matching openings.

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 only 20% — just fallbackToVisitorPlace is documented — and the description covers only 'query' and the filters object. The pointer that filters are 'the same as search_jobs' genuinely helps the agent borrow semantics for the ~17 nested filter fields, but locale, commuteRadiusMiles, and the filters' optionality/nullability are left unexplained.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Summarize' on a defined resource ('the live market for a role and place') and enumerates the exact outputs: matching opening count, median listed pay, most common work arrangement, top requested skills, plus request interpretation. That aggregate framing cleanly separates it from the listing-oriented siblings like search_jobs and list_company_jobs.

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 clause 'Takes a query and the same filters as search_jobs' implicitly positions this as the aggregate counterpart to search_jobs, which is useful routing context. But it never states when to prefer this over search_jobs or over get_local_demand, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer the choice.

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