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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the upstream source is Platsbanken (CC0), and recruitment/staffing agencies plus mass door-to-door or telephone-sales hiring are actively removed from results — a filtering rule an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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, front-loaded with what is listed and from where, then the exclusion rules, then the use case. No filler, though the final 'Use it to...' sentence is somewhat redundant with the opening scope statement.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it discloses the source and the filtering but not the shape of a returned company record (name, ad count, links), which an agent would want. Still complete enough to select and invoke the tool correctly given its simplicity and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both limit and county, including the full county enum list. The description only restates 'Optional filter by county (län)', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — companies with open B2B salesperson job ads in Sweden — and pins down the data source (Platsbanken, CC0). The Swedish/geographic and 'B2B salesperson' scoping implicitly separates it from find_startups_hiring_sales, but the sibling is never named, so overlap risk remains.

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?

'Use it to find companies that are building up their sales teams in Sweden' gives one clear usage context. However, it offers no exclusions or routing to alternatives such as find_startups_hiring_sales or recent_b2b_funding_rounds, so the agent must infer when this tool wins over its siblings.

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