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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail such as salary signals only coming from listings that publish pay, and the difference between full-market and filtered results. This exceeds the baseline without contradicting the 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?

The description is compact and well structured: it opens with the core purpose, then gives no-arg and filtered usage, then lists what each call returns. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.

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 an output schema and annotations present, the description covers the key decision an agent needs to make: whether to pass query/location or call with no args. The only minor gap is that workplace_type filtering is not mentioned in the prose, but the schema fully covers that parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that query and location define a market slice and by describing what changes in the returned data (match count, top companies, salary signals). It does not mention workplace_type in prose, but the schema already documents it clearly.

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 returns aggregate job-market statistics, not individual jobs, which distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs and get_job_details. It also explains both the full-market and filtered-slice behaviors, making the resource and purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance for when to call with no args versus when to pass query and location, including a concrete example. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear enough for correct routing in most cases.

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