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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it retrieves 'public job listings' (no auth implied) and discloses the per-call cost ('$0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base)'). It does not contradict annotations and offers more than a bare statement of the operation, though it omits details like rate limits or anti-scraping behavior.

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 a single tight sentence that packs the core purpose, target site, geographic scope, and return fields, followed by a cost/payment note. There is no filler, redundancies, or repetition of schema content. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned data fields (title, company, location, employment type, posted date, URL). It also covers cost and the public nature of the data. It is not exhaustive – e.g., it doesn't state that scraping may be slow or that lives results depend on website availability – but for a read-only scraper with strong annotations, this is broadly sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. The description's mention of 'by keyword' aligns with the 'keywords' parameter and the listed output fields add meaning, but it does not clarify the optional location, max_items, max_pages, or fetch_full_description semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search jobs.ch (Switzerland) by keyword' – a specific verb ('search'), a clear target resource ('jobs.ch'), and geographic scope ('Switzerland'). It also enumerates the output fields (title, company, location, employment type, posted date, URL), which unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling scrapers targeting other platforms or countries.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need public job listings from jobs.ch in Switzerland. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use,' but the country/platform scope provides clear contextual guidance. A direct exclusionary note would strengthen this, but it is not misleading.

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