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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral detail. It delivers substantial context: pagination and ordering, isActive/deactivatedAt semantics, the job:null/locked/lockedReason scenarios, and even advice to check the company's careers page on deactivation. None of this contradicts 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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical usage directive. The later edge-case explanations (isActive, locked, job:null) are essential because there is no output schema, and each paragraph earns its place. It is not maximally concise, but it is well organized for the complexity.

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?

The tool has only optional pagination parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain the return experience. It covers the job list contents, notes, jobType, pagination, order, active/deactivated fields, locked/nulled entries, and practical follow-up guidance. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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%, and both page and pageSize have clear descriptions and bounds. The tool description adds only that results are 'paginated, newest saves first,' which is context the schema does not provide, but it does not need to restate parameter syntax. 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 ('Get the user's saved jobs list') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by calling it the user's 'job search memory' and 'bookmarked across sessions.' It explicitly contrasts itself with get_starred_jobs and search_jobs, so an agent knows exactly which tool this is.

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?

Provides an explicit directive: 'IMPORTANT: Always call this before get_starred_jobs or search_jobs when helping with job search.' It explains why (to avoid re-recommending jobs already saved or dismissed), giving a clear selection rule among siblings.

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