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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds non-obvious context by disclosing the temporal nature of the data ('Dated') and a liability caveat ('not legal advice'). It also previews the return shape (applicable laws plus the statute for each), which the annotations do not.

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, no filler: the core capability with its inputs and output is front-loaded, and the scope/liability caveat is compressed to a single trailing fragment.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does (applicable laws with the statute for each, covering pay range, benefits, close date). A read-only, idempotent lookup with 100% schema coverage needs little more, though the exact response shape and multi-location handling remain unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents remote, locations and employee_count. The description restates the driving factors (hiring location, company size, remote status) without adding format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema's example values and threshold note. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (check/applies) and resource (US state and city pay-transparency laws for a job post), including the inputs that drive the answer and what is returned (the statute for each). It is clearly distinct from writer/linter siblings like lint_job_post and write_job_description.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope (you call it when you need to know which pay-transparency laws apply to a post), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as lint_job_post for general compliance-style checks. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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