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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the no-argument mode returns the full field list, and it discloses token cost (~710 for fields, ~2370 for departments), which is genuinely useful for planning.

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?

Three labeled lines (Purpose, When, Cost), front-loaded and free of filler. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 no explanation; purpose, trigger, default behavior, and cost are all covered. Only the explicit relationship to sibling search tools is left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the meaningful default: with no arguments it lists every field and its values. Combined with the schema notes on `field`/`value`, an agent knows exactly what omitting parameters does.

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: explain every search field and its values, plus map departments to families and titles. This clearly separates it from the sibling job_postings_search, which performs searches rather than explaining fields.

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 'When' clause gives concrete triggers: before choosing a field the user did not spell out, or when a search result is ambiguous. It implies the relationship to search tools without naming them explicitly, so it falls just short of the when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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