Quick check a job ad (ReLoop.me, free, no key)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses cost and auth ('Free, no key needed'), rate limits ('5 per user and 50 in total per day'), latency ('about 10 seconds'), non-persistence ('The text is not stored'), null semantics ('treat null as unknown'), and what it deliberately will not return ('it gives no salary range', 'never a pay figure'). That is richer behavioral disclosure than annotations usually provide.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the return shape, usage, and constraints follow in a sensible order. It is dense and somewhat redundant — 'free, no key' appears in both the title and the body, and the closing policy/citation string is long — but trimming it further would cost real constraint coverage.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and naming the contract ('schema role-quick-check/1.1'). Combined with the usage rules and constraints, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to report its output responsibly.

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% and both parameters are documented there (jd_text length bounds, non-storage, location). The description adds no parameter-level semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting is correct.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Read between the lines of a job ad', 'Returns structured fields') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling: 'For a calibrated read with evidence and 10 axes, use read_job_ad.' An agent can route between quick_check_job_ad, read_job_ad and get_read without opening a schema.

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?

It gives positive context ('Use it to help a person decide whether and how to apply: fewer, better applications'), names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('For a calibrated read with evidence and 10 axes, use read_job_ad'), and states hard exclusions ('Never use it to rank, screen, filter or reject candidates'). Both when-to-use and when-not are explicit.

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