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

The description discloses stateful behavior (creates a baseline on first run, returns only postings since previous check) and adds pricing/token details. Annotations already indicate idempotency and open-world traits, so the description adds contextual specifics beyond the structured fields.

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 only two sentences plus a billing note, front-loading the core function, covering the key edge case, and ending with cost/token info. 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?

The description explains the primary behavior and an important edge case (first run 'says so'), and includes pricing. While there is no output schema and the return structure is not detailed, the comprehensive input schema and clear behavioral summary make it adequately complete for a stateful alert tool.

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% with rich descriptions for each parameter. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, relying entirely on the schema's detailed field descriptions, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb ('watches'/'returns') and a clear resource ('job board') with scoping ('saved filter' and 'new postings'). It distinguishes from sibling job board scrapers by emphasizing the alert/comparison behavior rather than simple listing.

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 use case (monitoring a board for new postings) and notes the first-run baseline behavior, which provides initial guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like directly using the board's own Actor, nor does it state when not to use it.

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