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

With no annotations, the description still discloses two important behaviors: results are sorted by posting time descending and each call costs $0.05 USDC. It does not cover payment/auth handling, pagination, or how max_age_days/include_stale affect results, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and sort order first, then the sector-value constraint, then an example and billing note. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers sector semantics and billing, but omits two parameters and does not clarify return behavior or payment mechanics.

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 0%, so the description must explain the four parameters. It clarifies the required sector format and shows limit in the example, but it does not explain max_age_days or include_stale at all, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific action and resource: querying active job postings for a sector/industry, sorted by posting time descending. It clearly differs from company-oriented siblings by scoping to sector, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as company_jobs or search_jobs.

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 a useful prerequisite: the sector value must match list_sectors, and it includes a concrete example. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of search_jobs or company_jobs, so usage guidance is implied rather than complete.

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