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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by disclosing the exact return fields, what is omitted, and the pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged). This gives the agent critical operational and cost awareness.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words: purpose and source first, then limitations, then pricing. Each sentence adds distinct value and is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: data source, returned fields, exclusions, and cost. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single limit parameter is fully explained in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 resource (jobs on Internshala's public /jobs/ page) and the data extracted (job title and detail-page link in page order). The source and format distinguish it from sibling job board tools.

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?

Provides clear context by detailing what is returned and explicitly noting exclusions (company, location, pay), which helps an agent decide if the tool meets its needs. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to avoid this tool in favor of other job board tools.

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