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 meaningful context beyond that: the source is a credential-free public careers JSON and results include inline description/qualifications, telling the agent what kind of data comes back.

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 that carries the resource, the query style, the data source, and the inline-content note without waste. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 (q, page, sort, limit, country, category) is already documented in the schema including the q/category-required rule. The description adds nothing further, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (Amazon Jobs) and narrows the scope to a full-text query over the public careers JSON. It is clearly distinct from amazon_jobs_job (detail) and amazon_jobs_categories, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 the verb 'search', and 'full-text query' hints at the q-driven path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling guidance (e.g., when to prefer category browsing or the job-detail tool).

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