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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive properties. The description adds behavioral context such as reverse-chronological ordering, one-page results, and omission of HTML descriptions. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three well-structured sentences. The first sentence provides purpose and context, the second explains ordering and exclusion, and the third tells how to use parameters. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, full annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: data source, ordering, filtering, pagination, and relation to sibling. It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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% with descriptions and examples. The description reinforces usage of 'page' and 'remote_only', adding that page defaults to 1 with 100 jobs per page and remote_only filters to remote jobs. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as listing recent job postings from Arbeitnow, specifying the board's characteristics (European, Germany-heavy, English-speaking, visa-sponsorship). It also distinguishes from the sibling get_job by noting that HTML descriptions are omitted.

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 explains when to use the tool (to list jobs, paginate, filter remote) and references get_job as an alternative for full descriptions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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