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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: comparability is by ESCO code and geography, not text similarity, and it answers a specific user intent. This enriches the agent's mental model without contradicting 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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by concrete usage examples and a clarifying contrast. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is simple (2 params, no nesting), has an output schema, and benefits from safety annotations. The description explains the core matching logic, when to use it, and how it differs from alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and both slug and limit are already well described in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level detail but provides useful context about how the slug's role and geography drive matching. This meets 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 names a specific verb and resource ('find comparable jobs'), defines the comparison criteria (occupation family, area, seniority), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by stating it is not text-based. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use scenarios with natural-language examples ('find me similar jobs', 'the same but remote') and contrasts the tool with keyword search, implicitly distinguishing it from search_jobs. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool and when to prefer it, but the guidance is strong.

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