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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the ordering ('newest saved first'), the returned fields ('same fields as search results and when each was saved'), and the authentication requirement ('Needs the user's personal access token').

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?

The description is two sentences and contains no obvious waste. It is reasonably front-loaded, though starting with 'The jobs saved...' rather than a direct verb phrase makes the purpose slightly less immediate than it could be.

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 list tool with an output schema, annotations covering safety, and a fully documented parameter schema, the description provides the key extra context an agent needs: authentication requirement, ordering, and return-field expectations. It leaves no critical calling detail 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, fully documenting its range and default. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the resource ('jobs saved on the user's Ocean of Jobs account') and ordering ('newest saved first'), and it references the same fields as search results. It distinguishes the saved-jobs scope from general search, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like search_jobs.

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 description implies the tool is for viewing a user's saved jobs but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over siblings such as search_jobs or get_job, and no when-not-to-use notes.

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