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

Annotations already declare the operation safe, read-only, and idempotent. The description adds the valuable side-effect disclosure of a 10-Zooq-credits cost, which is not present in the annotations or schema. It does not conflict with the annotations.

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 and front-loads the core concept ('People also viewed postings') before adding the cost note. Each phrase earns its place, though the structure is slightly parenthetical and could be more sentence-like.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description provides enough context: what the results are based on and the cost. The only gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this over semantically related sibling tools.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter fully, including its type, meaning, and exact source via search_jobs or companies_jobs. The main description adds no extra parameter meaning, 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?

The description identifies the resource ('postings') and the behavioral basis ('people also viewed'), and 'behavioral relatedness' helps distinguish it from content-based sibling tools like jobs_similar. It lacks an explicit verb and a fuller sentence, but the meaning is clear and not a tautology.

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 parenthetical 'behavioral relatedness' implies the tool is for job recommendations based on other users' viewing behavior, but the description never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as jobs_similar or jobs_details_v2. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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