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

Annotation already sets readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the high churn rate of withdrawn jobs (HTTP 410), automatic compensation attempts, the fact that fetching full descriptions costs no extra request, and the lack of server-side keyword search. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the primary purpose and output fields, then adds behavioral context. The cost note ('$0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base)') is tangential to tool selection and invocation, preventing a perfect 5.

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?

For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, source, output fields, and important caveats (410 churn, compensation, no server-side search). It lacks a precise return-structure description, which would be needed with no output schema, so it is not a 5.

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% with rich explanations for all 5 parameters (e.g., max_items explains the 410 churn, keyword_filter explains client-side filtering). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Walk xing.com's own job sitemap and pull...') with a clear resource (public job listings from DACH) and lists the output fields. It inherently differentiates from sibling job scrapers by naming XING and the DACH region.

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 gives clear context: it scrapes XING's public sitemap for DACH jobs and explicitly notes that XING's own job search is not used (requires a browser session). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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