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

The description discloses that partial results are marked as partial and list what is missing, which is a behavior not covered by annotations. It also mentions the cost per call. However, it does not explicitly mention the stateful memory behavior (tracking changes across runs), which is only implied in the schema parameter descriptions. With annotations already covering idempotence/destructiveness, this is adequate.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds only essential notes (partial results and pricing). The pricing detail including 'x402 (USDC on base)' is slightly cryptic and arguably unnecessary for an AI agent, but it does not detract significantly. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description conveys the core concept and partial-result handling but does not describe the return format or fields (e.g., how role and geography are presented). Since there is no output schema, this is a gap. The rich parameter schema partially compensates, but an agent might still be uncertain about what the result object looks like.

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 baseline is 3. The tool-level description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already thoroughly documents all three parameters with examples, defaults, and edge cases. No additional explanation is needed.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a cross-section of hiring demand by role and geography, assembled from several job sources in one call. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like company-hiring-radar, but the aggregation wording implies a higher-level view. A more explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns' would make it fully unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used for cross-sectional hiring demand analysis, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus sibling tools like company-hiring-radar or layoff-tracker. The parameter descriptions provide operational context (e.g., re-checking same slices), but the tool-level description lacks clear 'use this when' or 'not when' guidance.

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