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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the caveat to 'preserve evidence dates and completeness caveats,' hinting at data-quality limits, but omits pagination behavior and result-ordering details.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then packs format and pagination guidance into short clauses. Dense but every sentence serves a purpose with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the critical formats and pagination, though with 7 params at 0% schema coverage it could document limit and company to be fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and partially compensates: it gives since format (YYYY-MM-DD), country as ISO alpha-2, function as a job family or raw source label, and cursor usage. Still, it leaves limit, company, and the event label mapping (first-seen vs. 'new') undocumented.

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 (List) and resource (job changes) with scope: first-seen, confirmed-removed, or returned jobs. This clearly distinguishes it from read siblings like get_job or get_job_history, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides a pagination instruction ('Follow next_cursor with identical filters') and format hints, which is useful context for repeated calls. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance relative to siblings such as search_jobs, get_job_history, or search.

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