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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the fact that it searches globally via CareerJet. It doesn't disclose limitations, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, but the annotations cover the key safety aspects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information (provider, fields, scope). No unnecessary words; every element adds value. 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 comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention pagination (e.g., 'results are paginated') but the schema covers page and page_size. Output schema exists, so return format is documented elsewhere. Slight room for improvement, but overall adequate.

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 provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It mentions key fields (title, company, salary, location, contract type) but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Search global job listings'), specifies the provider ('via CareerJet'), and lists relevant fields (title, company, salary, location, contract type) and scope ('across 90+ countries'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling job search tools like jobs.adzuna.search or jobs.jooble.search by naming the specific source.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for global CareerJet listings, but does not specify scenarios where this would be preferred over other job search tools available (e.g., Adzuna, Jooble, Reed). A statement like 'Use for comprehensive international listings from CareerJet' would improve clarity.

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