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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard cap of 25 results per call, ordering rules (newest first, best-match when a query is given), daily freshness checking, and that the answer states the date window and update time.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded, but the full enumeration of 35 metro names duplicates the schema's enum verbatim and consumes most of the text. Removing that list would make the definition materially tighter without losing information.

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, the description still explains the return shape: count cap, ordering, per-result URL and slug, plus the metadata about date window and update time. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and enum values are fully documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds ordering semantics and the 25-result cap, and it redundantly re-lists all 35 metros already enumerated in the schema.

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 and resource (searches developer/tech roles) with sharp scope: last 7 days, read from employers' own hiring systems, 35 metros plus remote. An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_job and the summary siblings.

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 makes clear this is the discovery/listing step and that get_job takes the returned slug, which routes the agent between the two tools. It lacks an explicit statement of when-not-to-use (e.g., versus weekly_summary or salary_summary), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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