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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds a genuinely valuable non-obvious detail: billing cost of 1 credit per 10 records with a minimum of 1. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the shape of results, but for an annotation-backed read tool the added cost disclosure is strong context.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and key fields first, cost constraint second, disambiguation last. No redundant or filler text, and it is front-loaded with what the tool returns.

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, and the full parameter set is documented in the schema. For an eight-param query tool the description supplies purpose, routing, and cost, covering everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description gestures at the provider, open-role, and visa-sponsorship fields, which map to some params, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (Find) plus a clearly scoped resource (hiring companies in the jobs-board registry) with the salient output fields (ATS provider, open-role count, visa-sponsorship evidence). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

It names three alternatives explicitly with the condition that selects each: datasets_jobs_search for postings, datasets_jobs_company_item for a single company, datasets_jobs_nearby for location search. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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