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 mentions being a 'proxy' and returns 'Parsed JSON response', but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the API does beyond searching. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 as a proxy. The parameter and return value explanations are clear and efficient, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from parameter details for better readability.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like error handling or authentication. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps in operational context.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'keywords' are 'list of keyword strings', 'locations' are 'list of dicts with keys name, admin1_code, country_code, remote (bool)', 'titles' are 'list of title strings', 'distance' is 'integer distance in meters', and 'page' is 'integer page number'. This clarifies the purpose and structure of each parameter, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states it's a 'Proxy to JobsWithGPT search API', which indicates it performs search operations, but it's vague about what exactly is being searched (e.g., jobs, content, data). It doesn't specify the resource or domain clearly, though 'JobsWithGPT' implies job-related searches. Without siblings, differentiation isn't needed, but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or API limits, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for usage. It's a basic functional statement without operational context.

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