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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the paginated return contract and the exact shape of each record, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 purpose, then pagination, then the return fields. The field listing is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema to convey it.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining pagination, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is routing between this tool and the sibling job_ads, plus the cursor/next_cursor naming mismatch.

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 all five parameters are already documented, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that (baseline 3). It mildly muddies things by calling the paging token 'next_cursor' while the actual parameter is named 'cursor'.

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?

The opening sentence gives a specific resource and scope: daily counts of open job ads in Sweden. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling job_ads tool, leaving the granularity difference to inference.

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 second sentence gives operational guidance on paging ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'), which tells the agent how to consume results. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over job_ads or when-not to use it, so usage selection is only implied.

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