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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which is a non-obvious profile for a search-style tool, yet the description adds no behavioral context at all — no cost, caching, rate-limit, or result-count information (the 5-minute cache and the 10-results-per-page limit live only in the schema text). With annotations shouldering the safety profile, the description still contributes essentially nothing beyond them.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the platform and the core action, then enumerates the supported retrieval modes. The enumeration is somewhat list-like but every clause maps to a real capability, so there is little waste.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers only the retrieval intent and leaves pagination context, output-format implications of the json parameter, cache behavior, and the location/uule mutual exclusion entirely to the schema. The schema is thorough enough that the tool remains callable, but the description is thinner than a tool of this complexity warrants.

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% across all 13 parameters, so the schema already explains q, gl, hl, uds, json, lrad, uule, chips, ltype, location, no_cache, google_domain, and next_page_token. The description's mention of location, radius, remote work and filters loosely maps to location/lrad/ltype/chips but adds no syntax or format detail, 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?

The description names a specific platform and resource ('通过 Google Jobs 查询招聘职位、岗位列表'), plus the secondary capability of fetching next-page results, so the agent can tell it is a job-listing retrieval tool. It does not differentiate against overlapping siblings such as glassdoor_joblistings, linkedin_job_listings_information, or indeed_companies_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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 '当用户需要…时触发' framing gives an implied trigger condition (job search, job lists, next page, filtering by location/radius/remote), which is enough to route a job-related request here. However, it offers no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative job source, so the agent must infer selection on its own.

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