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

Description adds significant context beyond annotations: pagination (100 per page), sort order (newest first), returned fields, hourly update frequency, and API source. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and description aligns perfectly.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, pagination, output fields, update frequency, geographic focus, and API nature. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description still lists key return fields. It also provides update frequency, geographic scope, API type, and pagination details. No missing context for a simple browse tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'page' parameter's effect ('100 jobs per page', no server-side search) and default behavior, which enriches the minimal schema definition.

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 browses European job listings with specific details (100 per page, sorted by newest). It explicitly names EU countries like Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Netherlands, distinguishing it from other job tools on the server.

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 use for EU-focused job browsing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.jooble.search. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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