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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the query targets public postings on jobs.apple.com, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about pagination limits, result caps, or how 'page' behaves.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence naming the source site and query type with no filler. It is appropriately short, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter detail noted above.

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 three-parameter search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential who/what. It leaves the page and location parameters unexplained and gives no usage routing, which is adequate but clearly short of complete.

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 0% across three parameters. The description only hints that 'q' is a free-text query string; it says nothing about what 'page' expects (offset vs page number, default) or what form 'location' takes (city, country, slug). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (full-text query/search) and resource (jobs.apple.com public postings), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like apple_jobs_job (detail) and apple_jobs_locations. It does not explicitly name those siblings or draw the boundary in words, keeping it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'full-text query across jobs.apple.com's public postings' implies the general use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., use apple_jobs_job once you have an id, apple_jobs_locations to enumerate locations). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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