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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note — that source listings may be stale and are not guarantees of current availability — but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or what the user's "decisions" fields look like.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the freshness caveat follows as a secondary note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient. The gaps are the undefined "decisions" payload and the absence of paging expectations beyond the schema's offset note, which leaves the return shape unclear since there is no output schema.

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 limit and offset fully documented in the schema including the next_offset chaining hint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List saved jobs") plus an additional data element ("the connected user's decisions"), which separates it from sibling list tools like list_applications or search_jobs. It does not explicitly name those siblings, and "decisions" is left unexplained, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus search_jobs, save_job, or list_applications, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The agent must infer that this reads previously saved postings rather than searching the broader catalog.

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