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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: data is scraped from the public search page via a residential proxy, full descriptions are absent, and billing is $0.002 per successful call with failures not charged. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending money.

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?

Front-loads what is returned and the scope before the operational/pricing sentence, with no filler. The single long first sentence is dense but every clause carries information; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

Despite an output schema existing (so return values need not be spelled out), the description still names the fields, states the 20-result cap, notes absence of full descriptions, and discloses pricing. Nothing needed to call it correctly or budget for it 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (q, limit, location) are already documented with examples and bounds. The description only echoes 'keyword and optional location' and 'up to 20', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (SimplyHired job search, US), enumerates the returned fields, and bounds the scope to the first page (up to 20) plus total count. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the many other job-board siblings by source.

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?

Gives clear conditions: US market, single keyword plus optional location, first page only, no full job descriptions. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative (e.g., jobs_indeed or other boards) for non-US or deep-description needs, so the agent must infer routing from the geo qualifier.

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