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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive, but the description adds material behavior beyond them: nothing is saved, no watch is created, no token is needed, and the response shape (interpreted query, jobs newest first, total, next_offset). It also documents the concrete payload fields and the precedence rule that explicit filters override the query.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the usage rule, then return shape, then the field list. Every sentence is functional, though the enumeration of returned job fields and the repeated query example make it longer than strictly necessary.

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 14-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the calling contract: what to pass, what comes back, how pagination continues, and how filters interact. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description rises above it by adding the cross-parameter precedence rule ('Explicit filters override what the query says') and by illustrating the free-text query style. It doesn't add much beyond the schema for the granular filter semantics themselves.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find the tech jobs open right now') plus scope ('across every job board Watchtower monitors'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling watch_jobs, so an agent can route without comparing schemas.

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?

States the selection rule verbatim: use this for 'what is open right now'; use watch_jobs to be told about new postings later. That is an explicit when-to-use plus named alternative, with no inference required.

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