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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already declare it as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by specifying return fields and mentioning data volume ('70K+ developer jobs in US alone'), but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, sorting, or rate limits beyond what annotations cover.

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: first covers search scope and parameters, second covers output and a data point. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. Excellent conciseness.

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 10 parameters, high schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently covers search capabilities and return values. It lacks explicit explanation of pagination or sorting, but these are implied by the 'limit' and 'page' parameters. The mention of specific countries and developer jobs adds useful context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage across 10 parameters, each well-documented. The description summarizes search dimensions (keyword, location, category, salary range) and return fields, adding marginal clarification beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Search job listings across 16+ countries' and lists specific search parameters (keyword, location, category, salary range) and return fields (title, company, salary, location, apply URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like jobs.adzuna.categories and jobs.adzuna.salary by mentioning Adzuna and the broad country coverage.

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 provides clear context on usage: multi-country job search with defined parameters and output. It implies when to use (e.g., for job listings across these countries) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other job search tools (e.g., jobs.jooble.search). The reference to get categories from jobs.adzuna.categories is in the schema, not the description, but the description is still adequate.

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