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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the first run creates a baseline and that the tool says so, and it includes the cost per call. While it doesn't detail all stateful mechanics, the added value is solid given annotations already flag non-read-only and open-world aspects.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded: two sentences cover the core behavior and baseline mechanism, plus a short pricing note. Every segment adds necessary context, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 stateful watcher with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, first-run baseline, and cost. It could specify the return format or how to reset a baseline, but the input schema's per-parameter details and README references fill most gaps.

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?

All four parameters have thorough descriptions in the input schema, so the schema carries the full semantic weight. The tool description doesn't mention parameters, but with 100% schema coverage, no additional information is needed. 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 clearly states what the tool does: it 'watches a job board for a saved filter' and 'returns only the postings that appeared since the previous check.' This specific verb + resource + scope distinguishes it from the many sibling scrapers and aggregators, which don't offer baseline-based incremental monitoring.

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 this tool: when you want to monitor a job board for new postings since the last check. The 'previous check' and 'first run' language provides strong contextual guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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