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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses exactly which fields are returned, that salary and description are omitted, the content language, and the pay-per-success x402 pricing model with no charge for failures. These are material behavioral details an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

It front-loads the returned fields, then adds necessary exclusions, language, and payment details in compact sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

Given one optional parameter, an existing output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the source, returned fields, omissions, language, and cost. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema as 1 to 22 with a default of 10. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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: newest offers on InfoJobs' public Spanish job list page, with the returned fields listed. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling job-board tools by naming the source and geographic/linguistic scope.

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 description clearly identifies the context: InfoJobs' public Spanish job list, which tells an agent when this source is appropriate. It does not explicitly say when to choose it over sibling job-board tools or name exclusions beyond the source scope.

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