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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add context. It does so usefully by disclosing the inline return shape ('descriptions, responsibilities, and qualifications inline') and the hard constraint that 'Google fixes page size at 20'. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination exhaustion, so a 4 rather than 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by return shape, the page-size constraint, and the routing hints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 not be enumerated, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, scope, page-size behavior, and sibling routing, making it essentially complete for a search tool; only minor gaps like pagination termination remain.

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 `q`, `page`, and `location`; baseline is 3. The description confirms `q` as the driver and `location` as optional and adds the fixed-page-size-20 context relevant to `page`, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Search Google's public Careers site') and immediately scopes it to `q` and optional `location`. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (google_jobs_job, amazon_jobs_search, apple_jobs_search), 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?

Names three alternatives and the exact condition selecting each ('google_jobs_job for one posting', 'amazon_jobs_search for Amazon', 'apple_jobs_search for Apple'). This is explicit alternatives routing, leaving little to inference.

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