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

Adds substantial context beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: exact pricing ($0.002 USDC per successful call), payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana, Arc), and the explicit guarantee that failed calls are not charged. It also discloses sort order and that a total count is returned — real behavioral value for an agent deciding whether to call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the pricing caveat is placed last where it belongs. The long enumerated field list is dense but largely informative; it is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Covers filtering, sorting, total count, and cost/payment model, which is what an agent needs before spending money on a call. Field enumeration duplicates the output schema, and it says nothing about rate limits or result-coverage scope, keeping it just under complete.

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%, so the schema already documents q, page, limit, type and category. The description only restates that keyword/category/type filters exist, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema; 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Open jobs on Authentic Jobs") and scopes the niche (design, engineering, product, marketing), which distinguishes it from generic boards in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with other job-board siblings like jobs_dice or jobs_themuse_jobs.

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?

States that keyword, category and type filters are optional and that results are newest-first, implying a browse/search use case. It never says when to pick this board over the many sibling job boards, nor any when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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