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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the data source (jobs.uxjobs.io) and that filters are optional, but says nothing about result limits, ordering direction, or empty-filter behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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 the core action and ranking metric, followed immediately by the optional filter scope and two illustrative queries. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 13 optional parameters, an output schema present, and defaults documented in-schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. It is near-complete; only the omission of any mention of ordering or result shape (which the output schema presumably covers) keeps it from being fully comprehensive.

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 92%, so nearly every parameter is self-documenting in the schema. The description only summarizes the filter families (country, remote, seniority, keywords, recency) at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the baseline of 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 (rank), resource (companies), and ranking metric (number of open UX/product-design roles) on a named source (jobs.uxjobs.io). An agent can distinguish this aggregation tool from sibling list/search tools like search_jobs or get_job without opening any schema.

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?

Provides two concrete usage examples ('who is hiring the most designers in Berlin', 'which companies opened design roles this week') that make the intended question type obvious. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it (e.g. versus hiring_snapshot or search_jobs), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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