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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the result shape (title, employer, location, posting date, job types, benefits, salary, description) that no output schema provides, plus the notable billing guarantee that paid-but-unreturned jobs are refunded. It omits rate limits and how the non-idempotent nature plays out across calls, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the core action and return payload front-loaded and no filler. The trailing refund clause is slightly tangential to selection, but each clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and all five parameters are documented in-schema, so an agent can call it correctly. It lacks only edge-case behavior (empty results, error handling, whether the full listing text is truncated), which is a minor omission for a read-only search tool.

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%, so every parameter (including the limit cap-slash-default quirk, the posted enum, and the country list) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of title, location, country, and recency filtering largely restates the schema, which is the correct baseline 3 rather than a value-added score.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Indeed jobs search API... send a job title... get up to 50 job listings as JSON') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the tool's function is unmistakable. However, it never distinguishes itself from its closest sibling (linkedin-jobs) or from general job-seeking via web-search, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete usage context -- filter by posting recency, coverage of 60 countries, up to 50 results -- but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like linkedin-jobs. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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