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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds material context: it runs via a residential proxy, costs $0.01 USDC per successful call via x402 (Base, Solana, Arc), and failed calls are not charged. That pricing/settlement detail is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing pagination limits beyond 'about 20 results' or rate/retry behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the returned fields, followed by a compact cost/access note. Dense but no filler; the long field enumeration is justified by the number of output attributes.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the payload shape, and it covers cost, source, geographic scope, and result volume. For a paid, proxied scraping tool, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds meaning by listing country codes (uk, us, it, fr, de, es, in, br, ...) and asserting the ~20-results-per-page ceiling that contextualizes the page parameter. Keyword/place semantics duplicate the schema but the extras lift it above baseline.

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+resource (Jobrapido job search on a country site), enumerates the returned fields (advert id, title, company, location, posted date, salary, source, sponsored flag, link), and scopes input to keyword+place with ~20 results per page. An agent can distinguish this from jobs_indeed or jobs_jooble by source and country coverage.

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 implies when the tool applies (keyword plus optional place on a given country site) and notes the country code parameter. However, it never states when to prefer this over the many sibling job-board tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'country site code'. Usage is implied, not guided.

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