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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the exclusion filtering, the fixed-score ranking, the apply_route values returned per match, and the presence of a ready-to-read `say` summary.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with zero filler; the detail about apply_route and `say` earns its place by describing output. Slightly dense but efficient overall.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably, explaining that each match carries an apply_route and that a summary is placed in `say`. Minor gaps remain (no mention of default limit or empty-result behavior) but the tool is callable as-is.

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 all three parameters (limit, where, min_score) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at them ('their roles and places', 'fixed match score') without adding syntax or format detail, 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 resource ('Current jobs ranked for this person') and details the scope: live jobs filtered by roles/places and ranked by a fixed match score. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling jobs_for_me, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 filtering rules ('leaves out anything they dismissed, applied to or excluded') imply the tool is for surfacing fresh, actionable job matches, giving implied usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any named alternative (jobs_for_me, search_jobs, similar_jobs), leaving the choice to inference.

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