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. The description adds only the ordering behavior ('nearest first'), which is useful, but says nothing about radius defaults, closed-posting handling, or result limits beyond what the schema states.

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, tightly scoped sentence with the ordering behavior front-loaded in parentheses. Zero waste, though the parenthetical is slightly clipped rather than fully formed prose.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values or parameter formats. It conveys the core operation adequately, though a one-line pointer to the non-geo sibling would make the routing 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 100%, so every parameter (lat, lon, radius_km, page, page_size, provider, include_closed) is already fully documented. The description only echoes the coordinate and radius concept, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Find job postings') plus the scoping dimension ('near a coordinate'), so an agent can distinguish it from the keyword-based jobs search. It does not name the sibling it differs from (datasets_jobs_search), so it stops 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 'near a coordinate' implies the geo use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over datasets_jobs_search or the facets tool, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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