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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description adds that listings are public plus cost/payment information. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or data freshness, though annotations cover the key safety 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 a single, well-structured sentence that covers purpose, scope, and output fields, followed by a succinct pricing note. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 rich parameter schema and annotations, the description adequately covers tool purpose, scope, output fields, and cost. It does not describe rate limits or failure modes, but no output schema exists, so listing the returned fields is especially helpful.

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 detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., max_pages, fetch_full_description). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the exact resource ('jobs.ch (Switzerland)'), listing concrete output fields (title, company, location, employment type, posted date, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like job-postings-aggregator or xing-jobs.

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 use when searching Swiss jobs on jobs.ch but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., job-postings-aggregator, xing-jobs) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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