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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by emphasizing 'newest current' and the temporal use case, but it does not disclose details like result ordering guarantees, pagination behavior, or whether 'current' means only active listings.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and the primary use case are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 12-parameter tool, the description is short but sufficient for selection and initial invocation because the schema and output schema carry most of the invocation details. It clearly identifies the temporal scope and domain. It would be more complete if it explicitly routed broader searches to search_jobs or clarified whether results are ordered purely by publication date.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the 'jobs-since-a-date' use case, which aligns with the `since` parameter. This is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but the description itself does not compensate for the undocumented `limit` and `employment_type` parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('newest current ... jobs on PhysicalAI.jobs'), and clearly scopes the domain to PhysicalAI/robotics/humanoid/embodied AI jobs. It conveys recency as the distinguishing feature, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_jobs, so the differentiation is implied rather than named.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool for 'recent-job or jobs-since-a-date questions,' which is clear and actionable. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative such as search_jobs for broader or more complex filtered job searches.

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