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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: data is refreshed every morning, it aggregates thousands of vacancies from Ethiopian boards, and results default to open vacancies only. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 dense and front-loaded with the source and returned data fields. The list of fields of work is somewhat long and partially redundant with the schema, but every sentence adds useful context and there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers source, data freshness, returned fields, search and filter options, and default open-vacancy behavior. It does not mention pagination or explicit sorting beyond the query hint, but the schema provides the limit parameter and the query description implies the default ordering.

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 fully documents every parameter. The description adds some context such as English/Amharic keyword support and the available filter dimensions, but it mostly restates information already present in the parameter descriptions. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as listing open job vacancies in Ethiopia from BinaSmart, and enumerates the returned fields: job title, company, city, deadline, days left, salary, and requirements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job, which would return a single job, and list_job_fields, which would return field options.

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: search by keyword in English or Amharic, filter by field or city, and the default open-vacancies-only behavior unless include_closed is set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when this list tool is appropriate.

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