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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it uses a credential-free GraphQL endpoint and silently falls back to web-page scraping for page 2+ or the fromage filter, which warns the agent about inconsistent result shapes across pages.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the implementation detail afterward. The 'credential-free GraphQL API' and 'fromage filter' phrasing is jargon-heavy but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 6 undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and several obscure names, the description does not supply enough for an agent to call the tool correctly or understand what sort/radius/fromage accept.

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% for 6 parameters with cryptic one-to-three-letter names (l, q, page, sort, radius, fromage). The description maps only keyword and location loosely and mentions the 'fromage filter' without defining it, leaving radius, sort, page, and the abbreviations entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb (search) plus resource (Indeed jobs) and names the two primary filters, keyword and location. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling indeed_job or indeed_locations_suggest, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'job search by keyword and location', but the description never states when to choose this over siblings like indeed_job (detail fetch) or indeed_locations_suggest, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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