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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld), so the description's job is to add behavior; it does so by disclosing the dual-mode semantics (static country list vs. live search) that an agent could not infer from annotations. It stops short of noting latency/cost differences between the two modes, hence not a 5.

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 with no waste, front-loading the purpose and then the two operational modes. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the one optional param is fully documented. The description is complete for a lookup-style tool; only edge details (e.g., behavior on an unmatched q) are absent.

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% and the q description essentially duplicates the tool description, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: discovering valid values for apple_jobs_search's location parameter, naming the sibling tool it feeds. An agent can distinguish it from apple_jobs_search itself without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly describes two modes — omit q for the full country-level list, supply q for a live state/metro/city search — which tells the agent when each behavior applies. It doesn't say when *not* to call it relative to other siblings, but the referenced apple_jobs_search provides clear context.

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