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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the result is a point-in-time snapshot ("when the index was generated") and describes coverage scope, which is exactly the staleness context an agent needs before trusting downstream queries.

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, no filler. The content of the response is front-loaded and the usage directive follows immediately, so an agent can act after one read.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the exact metrics returned plus the generation timestamp and coverage. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filter arguments, and the enumerated return fields implicitly confirm this is an unfiltered snapshot.

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 names a specific resource (the JobSlop public index) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: job totals, active/inactive/ghost-flagged counts, company counts, generation time, and coverage. This clearly separates it from siblings like jobslop_search_jobs, jobslop_get_job, and fetch, which operate on individual records rather than the index as a whole.

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?

"Call this first to see how fresh and how large the data is" gives explicit when-to-use guidance and even a sequencing hint relative to other tools. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to call it, so it is clear context rather than full routing logic.

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