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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: typo tolerance, support for Greek/English/greeklish, and the large full tree, which helps set expectations about input flexibility and output volume.

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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. It packs essential details (language support, examples, typo tolerance, large tree) without redundancy or 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 simple lookup tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation. It lacks an explicit statement of the return structure or pagination behavior, but that is somewhat mitigated by the 'slugs accepted' phrasing and low tool complexity.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, already stating it is an optional fuzzy filter matched against Greek/English/greeklish names with examples. The tool description largely repeats this information, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Greek locations (regions and cities)'. It further clarifies its purpose by stating these are 'the slugs accepted by search_jobs' location filter', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like lookup_roles_and_companies.

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 clear usage context: pass a query to narrow by name, and warns that 'the full tree is large'. It implicitly ties usage to preparing filters for search_jobs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied search_jobs integration.

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