Parse a job posting

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by specifying the derived output surface (salary normalized/annualised, seniority, remote regions, flags), which no output schema documents. It stops short of saying what happens with missing optional fields or how confidence/ambiguity is handled.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payload of output fields. Every clause adds information an agent could act on; nothing is padding.

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 field enumeration in the description is doing the necessary work of describing the return shape, which mostly completes the picture. Remaining gaps are minor but real: the tool takes one posting while a batch sibling exists, and there is no hint about handling of missing description or malformed ads.

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 title, company, location and description are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g. that description is the main source of salary/skills extraction, or what happens when it is omitted), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('parse') plus resource ('a job ad') with an explicit enumeration of the output fields produced, which tells an agent exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling parse_job_postings_batch, though the singular/plural naming makes the split inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear it parses a single job ad, so an agent can guess it is the right pick over the batch or resume variants. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as parse_job_postings_batch for multi-posting input.

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