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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations. It explicitly states it's a safe GET request with zero side-effects, no authentication required, returns JSON sorted by publication date (newest first), and details rate limits. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations perfectly.

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 relatively concise, fitting all key information into a single paragraph. It covers purpose, usage hints, behavioral traits, parameter details, and constraints. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning, but the current form is adequate.

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 that there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing all returned fields. It also addresses pagination, prerequisites (calling get_taxonomies), and rate limits. For a simple read tool with no nested objects, this is comprehensively complete.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by specifying the default value for 'count' (100) and cross-referencing 'get_taxonomies' for valid location/industry slugs. It also reinforces the pagination behavior. This goes above the baseline 3 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 fetches a structured list of remote jobs from the Jobicy database. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_taxonomies' by mentioning that get_taxonomies should be called first to discover valid slugs for filtering.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: to fetch job listings. It recommends calling 'get_taxonomies' first for filtering. It also notes no authentication required and standard rate limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other use cases.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. Description adds context: read-only, no side-effects, no authentication required, reinforcing safe 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear structure.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, single sibling), description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavior, and relation to sibling comprehensively.

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 100% with parameter description. Description mentions 'locations or industries' but adds no additional semantic details beyond schema enum.

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 explicitly states it retrieves filter slugs for locations or industries, preventing formatting errors. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tool get_jobs.

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?

Directly advises using this tool before get_jobs to verify slug existence, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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