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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned dimensions (pay plus yearly equivalent, work type, job type, recency, direct employer vs agency, visa sponsorship, ghost-job check) and the computed verdicts (best pay, newest, remote).

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 purpose, then examples, then outputs; every sentence carries information. The output enumeration is dense but each item is a distinct returned field, so little is wasted.

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 burden of explaining return values, and it does so comprehensively, including derived 'best on' verdicts. Minor gaps remain around ordering of results and error behavior for invalid or out-of-range ids.

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% and the schema already documents the comma-separated 2-5 id format, including 'copied exactly'. The description repeats the cardinality constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Compare jobs side by side') and enumerates the per-job attributes returned, which distinguishes it from single-job siblings like get_job and similar_jobs. An agent can tell it is a multi-id comparison tool 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 clear triggering context with example user phrasings ('compare the first three', 'which of these pays best?') and states the input source ('ids from search results'). It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops 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.