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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds genuinely new behavior: no model call (deterministic, cheap, no LLM latency) and a result shape of counts plus 'the top few of each'. It leaves unstated what happens when all twelve optional filters are omitted.

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, purpose front-loaded, the cost/behavior caveat trailing as a single clause. Nothing repeats the schema and nothing is padding.

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 read-only, twelve-optional-parameter preview with no output schema, it conveys the return content (counts + shortlists) and the cost profile, which is what an agent needs to call it. The remaining gap is whether omitted filters mean 'any' across the board or trigger defaults.

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% with enums on nine of twelve parameters and an explicit 'vuoto = qualunque' note on region_to, so the schema carries parameter meaning alone. The description contributes nothing about how filters combine or what defaults apply when a field is skipped, which is exactly what is missing at the schema level.

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 concrete deliverable: a free personal plan preview counting how many places, remote jobs and incentives fit a person, with the top few of each. That is specific enough for an agent to know what comes back, though it never names a sibling (search_places, search_incentives, search_remote_jobs) to contrast against, so the boundary is inferred rather than declared.

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?

'Free preview' plus 'No model call' implicitly positions it as the cheap first-pass option before any full/paid planning step, which is real usage signal. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of the search_* siblings that cover the same domains, so an agent must guess whether one search_incentives call or this preview is the right starting move.

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