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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (id, job_number, title, status, schedule, tech/customer names, coordinates) and advising that the DB pk id is for navigation. No pagination or truncation behavior is mentioned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating returned columns and flagging id as a navigation key. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs to call it; only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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% with six well-documented params, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond noting which filters are 'common'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find jobs') and scopes it with 'with common filters', then enumerates the fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the search_freeform sibling, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas. Not a 5 only because it doesn't summarize the filter dimensions (status/date/tech) that define its domain.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition for using it: 'Use search_freeform for filters this tool lacks (e.g. by city).' That is clear routing guidance. It lacks any explicit when-not or prerequisite advice (e.g. required identifiers), but the core routing decision is covered.

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