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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search parameters and their optionality, which is useful, but it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination details beyond '10 results per page' in the schema). For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the tool's purpose and followed by a structured list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, the bulleted list could be slightly more concise, and the final sentence about optional parameters is necessary but adds length.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the search parameters well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a functional overview that is adequate for basic use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds value by summarizing the supported search parameters in a bulleted list and noting their optionality, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already covers (e.g., no examples of combined usage). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 description clearly states the tool searches for jobs using the Google Jobs API with specific search parameters. It provides a verb ('search') and resource ('jobs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 through the list of supported search parameters and notes that all parameters except 'query' are optional. This provides some context for when to use certain features, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (none mentioned) or any prerequisites. The guidance is functional but not strategic.

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