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

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world, but the description adds genuinely load-bearing context: a paid endpoint at $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls not charged, plus the sort behaviour and the exact response payload. That pricing and billing-failure policy is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from 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 core purpose is front-loaded and the field list is compact, but the sibling-tool sentence is grammatically broken ('from Dice for a keyword and optional', 'The Muse public API: title, company'), which costs clarity. The long enumerations of return fields are partly redundant with the output 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?

For a 7-parameter, zero-required search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, sorting and payment terms thoroughly. It omits pagination limits relative to the total-match count and any rate-limit guidance, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter including defaults and the 1-50 limit range. The description echoes the keyword, country and remote filters and mentions sort order, but adds no syntax, format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names the specific resource (nonprofit and social-impact listings from Idealist) and the variants it covers (jobs default, internships, volunteer roles), with the filtering scope (keyword, country, remote). It also names two sibling tools and the different needs they serve, so an agent can tell it apart from jobs_dice and jobs_themuse_jobs without opening a 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?

It gives clear routing guidance: use this for nonprofit/social-impact roles, and use jobs_dice or jobs_themuse_jobs 'for a different need', with the condition spelled out for each. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when not to use it, or what to do if the source lacks coverage), so not quite a 5.

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