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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — results are ranked by number of live vacancies and reflect current postings — but says nothing about pagination, result-set size caps, or what happens when a country has no data.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the scope front-loaded and the example question doing useful disambiguation work. The parenthetical qualifier list is slightly awkward and partly redundant with the schema's role description.

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 needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and no statement of how many schools a typical response contains, which matters for a ranked aggregation tool.

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 coverage is 75%, so country, city and role are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates their meaning. The limit parameter (1–25) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the result-size control opaque.

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 — which schools are hiring in a country, ranked by live vacancy count — and names the output fields (school names, counts, page URLs). It implicitly separates itself from job-level siblings like search_teaching_jobs, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 natural-language example ("which schools in Leeds are recruiting science teachers") gives a concrete usage context, and the optional city/role qualifiers are framed as refinements. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it, e.g. when the agent wants individual job listings rather than school aggregates.

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