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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world). The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered by Ranked's rank score, and each result carries a Ranked page plus a 'last verified live' timestamp. That is useful context beyond the structured fields, though neither pagination semantics nor failure behavior is mentioned.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope before the filter and return-value details. No filler, though the middle sentence packs many filters together and could be tighter.

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, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the essentials: scope, audience, available filters, result ordering, and what each result contains (Ranked page + verification timestamp). Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents nearly every parameter including enums and the visa.sponsorship variance. The prose restates the same filters (English workable, Japanese required, visa sponsorship, remote, minimum salary in yen) without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource+scope: 'Search live job openings in Tokyo, Japan, listed on Ranked (ranked.jp).' The resource (jobs) is unambiguous and self-evidently distinct from sibling search_companies. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 frames the audience ('Built for foreign professionals') and enumerates filters, which implies when the tool is useful, but it never states when to use this vs get_job/search_companies or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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