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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'Nothing is posted or stored' explicitly confirms the no-side-effect behavior an agent might doubt from a 'write' verb, and it points to the free posting destination.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then examples, then the flagging/benchmarking detail, then the no-storage note. Information-dense with little waste, though the example list and slang enumeration make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 15-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: what it produces (an advert plus flagging and pay comparison), the audience, and the no-persistence guarantee. The remaining gap is that it doesn't indicate how results are returned (e.g. structured advert text vs. annotated issues), which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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% across all 15 parameters, so the schema already documents every field. The description maps inputs loosely ('title, duties, must-haves and pay') but adds no format, unit, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Write a job advert and check the pay') and enumerates the concrete functions: building an advert from title/duties/must-haves/pay, flagging applicant-repelling content, and benchmarking pay against local adverts. An agent can separate this from siblings like jobspotter_check_salary or jobspotter_search_jobs without reading schemas.

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 scopes the audience ('For employers') and gives two concrete example prompts ('help me write an advert for a care assistant', 'is £12 an hour enough?'), which make the intended invocation clear. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs jobspotter_check_salary for pay-only questions), so it's clear context without exclusions.

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