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

The annotations already declare read-only behavior, and the description adds significant behavioral depth: proximity is a verifiable calculation from reference skills, not advice; the tool has no knowledge of the user; results include sharedSkills and a public URL; and there is an explicit warning against misuse. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is well organized, but the French and English versions largely duplicate each other, which adds length. The content is still focused, and every substantive point serves either selection, invocation, or safe use.

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 simple two-parameter tool with one required parameter, the description is complete: it explains the ranking logic, what each result contains, what the identifier should be, and what the output must not be used for. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing the key result fields.

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%, and the schema itself already documents both parameters, including the limit range/default and the identifier slug format with a note about ROME codes. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns jobs closest to a given job, ranked by shared skills. It explicitly names the user question it answers and differentiates itself from siblings like search_jobs and get_job by focusing on proximity rather than search or details.

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?

Clearly identifies the intended use case: career reconversion questions like 'what jobs are close to mine?'. It also provides a firm exclusion, telling agents not to present results as individual career guidance or combine them into psychometric advice. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives, but the use context is strong.

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