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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: a concrete cost model (1 credit per 10 records, minimum 1) and the distance-ordered result semantics. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the credit disclosure is the more important omission it fills.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then cost, then the alternative. Zero filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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 a fully documented input schema, the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, cost, and sibling routing well; only minor gaps (pagination/ordering interaction with page param) remain, which the schema largely addresses.

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 lat, lon, radius_km, provider, page, page_size, and include_closed. The description only implies the coordinate and radius semantics already spelled out in the schema, adding no syntax or default detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (Find) and resource (jobs) with explicit scope: near a coordinate, ordered by distance within a geographic radius. It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from datasets_jobs_search without opening either 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 routes the agent: 'Use datasets_jobs_search for text or filter-based searches.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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