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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful return behavior: similar title, same place, and exclusion of the source job. It does not cover pagination or result ordering, but adds more than annotations alone.

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 short, front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place by specifying input, usage examples, and output scope. The opening brand repeat 'Job Spotter' is minor redundancy given the title already carries it.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: where the id comes from and what kind of jobs are returned. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further information.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description repeats that the id comes from a search result and must be copied exactly, matching the schema rather than adding new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter details.

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: returns jobs similar to one from a search result. It distinguishes the tool from broad search by anchoring on an existing search-result id and excluding the original job. An agent can tell it apart from jobspotter_search_jobs without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete user phrasings ('show me more like the second one', 'anything similar to that Tesco job?') that set the context for use. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when not to use this tool, but the trigger condition is clear.

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