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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the data source (twice-daily crawl of ~20,000 boards across seven named ATS platforms), the freshness model, the 50-result cap, the returned fields including first-seen and nextSince for polling, and the $0.01 USDC x402 cost. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before committing a paid call.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then layers source, results, and cost in a compact order with no filler. It is dense but each clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 paid, no-output-schema, 8-parameter tool, the description covers everything material: what is returned (up to 50 newest with first-seen timestamps), how to paginate ('nextSince for the next poll'), where the data comes from, and what the call costs. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters including patterns and defaults. The description adds only the framing that filters match /jobs/search, and does not add semantics such as how 'since' interacts with the 30-day clamp or how minSalary filtering excludes jobs without published pay.

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 resource (new job openings) with a specific temporal scope (since a time) and a named use case (monitoring). The phrase 'Same filters as /jobs/search' plus the incremental 'first seen' framing makes the distinction from the sibling jobs_search tool explicit.

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 states the intended use case ('for monitoring (e.g. new remote engineering roles)') and implicitly routes one-shot searches to /jobs/search by pointing at its filter set. It does not spell out an explicit when-not rule, e.g. 'for a one-time broad search use jobs_search', so it falls short of a 5.

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