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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns counts for different time windows) but does not mention whether results are estimates, how data is sourced, or any limitations. It is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the 'quick market pulse' tag is an efficient summary. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple counting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and time frames. It lacks details on return format or error conditions, but given the low complexity and modest schema, it is nearly complete.

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 67%, with query and location described. The description adds relevance by tying query to the counting purpose, but it does not clarify the country parameter or how time periods are derived (there is no explicit time parameter). The description adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 indicates the tool counts new job postings for a query over time periods (today/3 days/week), distinguishing it from siblings like job_search and job_trends. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'count', making the purpose slightly indirect.

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 phrase 'Quick market pulse' implies using this tool for a fast high-level check of job posting volume, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over similar siblings like job_trends or job_search. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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