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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does: it discloses data freshness ('table checked 2026-10-05'), the full shape of what is returned (applicable laws, what the post shows, what may be missing, official sources), and an explicit scope boundary ('not legal advice').

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the input enumeration and the return/disclaimer clauses. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but each item adds real information, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends words on return contents and freshness, and it names a scope limit. It stops short of describing error or edge-case behavior (e.g., unmatched state, non-US posts) for a tool with three required inputs.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: 'the job's state, optional city or county, total employer size and remote status' maps onto state, place, employees, and remote, while the surrounding text implies text is the job post body. It still omits format expectations (e.g., whether state is a two-letter code or full name) for the required state parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check a US job post against state and city pay-range posting laws') and scopes it to US jurisdiction, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling check_job_posting, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 implied by the framing ('Check a US job post... for the job's state, optional city or county, total employer size and remote status'), which tells the agent what inputs to gather. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how it relates to the similar-sounding check_job_posting sibling.

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