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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the credential-free GraphQL source and, notably, a web-page fallback that kicks in for page 2+ or the fromage filter, which hints that results may vary in shape across pages.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler, followed by a dense parenthetical that carries the operational caveat. Efficient, though the fallback caveat is compressed into a parenthetical that could be easier to parse as its own clause.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the source mechanism, the credential-free nature, and the pagination fallback. It stops short of describing result counts, rate limits, or how to pick a location string (indeed_locations_suggest exists for that), leaving minor gaps.

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 six parameters, making 3 the correct baseline. The description's only param-relevant addition is tying fromage to the fallback path, which is mild extra meaning rather than syntax or format detail.

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 ('Indeed job search by keyword and location'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from indeed_job (detail) and indeed_locations_suggest (autocomplete). However, it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts its role with them, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The description implies usage by stating the search inputs (keyword and location) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to sibling tools like indeed_job or indeed_locations_suggest. Adequate minimum viability, but nothing routes the agent among alternatives.

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