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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses the 30-result cap, the residential-proxy source, the exact price ($0.01 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) and that failed calls are not charged. Cost and cap disclosure is exactly the context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose, geography and result cap are front-loaded, and the pricing sentence is efficient. The long mid-sentence field enumeration is partly redundant given the output schema exists, making it slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

Covers source, geographic scope, result limits, cost model and output contents, so an agent can call it correctly; the output schema handles return-value detail. The only gap is the absence of guidance on when this board is the right choice versus other job sources.

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 query/location/radius are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'near a US place' and 'distance (miles)' without adding format or default semantics, 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 ('Snagajob hourly-job search near a US place') plus scope ('up to 30 jobs'). The hourly/US/Snagajob qualifiers distinguish it cleanly from general boards like jobs_indeed or jobs_ziprecruiter without needing the 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'hourly-job search near a US place' — nothing states when to prefer this over sibling job boards or when it is inappropriate (e.g., non-US or salaried roles). No alternatives are named despite ~50 sibling job tools.

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