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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields, filter capabilities, pagination defaults/max, and response counts (total and pages). It implies a read-only browse operation but does not explicitly state side-effect-free status or authentication needs; still, it is quite transparent for a list-reading tool.

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 three sentences with no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose: first states purpose and output fields, second lists filters, third covers pagination. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, which it does by listing return fields and pagination metadata. It covers all filter dimensions and pagination behavior. Missing details like error handling or optionality of location parameters are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reiterates filter types and pagination defaults that are already in the schema, adding no new parameter-specific semantics beyond reinforcing how they are used together (e.g., location parameters implied by 'location').

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 tool 'Browse open job listings on the public board' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It lists return fields and distinguishes itself from the singular sibling 'get_listing' through the plural 'listings' and browsing intent.

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 conveys clear context: this is for browsing and filtering multiple listings on the public board. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_listing for a single listing') or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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