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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is anonymous, bounded to the last 8 weeks, and small groups are suppressed below 10 searches. It does not describe pagination or exact return shape, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 purpose and the two invocation modes are front-loaded in a compact paragraph, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly dense with the title restated at the start, but 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does: counts, rising/falling trends, listings per search, and easiest places to find openings. The 10-search suppression rule is an important caveat. Only units/dates and the response shape remain unspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning by explaining what happens when 'what' or 'where' are omitted — a behavioral consequence of the optional parameters that the schema does not convey. The 'what'/'where' string semantics themselves are left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource: anonymous weekly search counts on Job Spotter, broken down by role word and place, over an 8-week window, with listings found per search. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling job-search tools like jobspotter_search_jobs or jobspotter_whats_hiring, which deal with listings rather than demand data.

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?

Concrete example questions ("how many people are looking for care jobs in Leeds?") anchor when to reach for this tool, and the description explains the two invocation modes: omit 'what' for top roles in a place, omit 'where' for top places for a role. It does not name any sibling alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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