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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: it explains what comes back (similar titles, same location) and that the input job is deliberately omitted, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage examples, followed by the return contract. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 explanation and does so adequately (similar title, same place, source excluded). An agent has enough to call it correctly, though result ordering/size behaviour beyond the limit cap is 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 both parameters are already documented, including 'copied exactly' on id and the 1-10 bound with default 10 on limit. The description largely restates the id semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a similar title in the same place') plus the key scoping fact that the source job is excluded. That distinguishes it from get_job (single job) and search_jobs (fresh query) without needing to name them.

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 trigger utterances ('show me more like the second one', 'anything similar to that Tesco job?') and the precondition that the id must come from a search result. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling (search_jobs, get_job) 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.