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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the return format (Markdown-formatted list), data processing (descriptions truncated to 100 characters, HTML tags removed, date formatting), and constraints (limit must be 1-100, raises ValueError if exceeded). It also notes source attribution per API terms. However, it doesn't cover potential errors beyond limit validation or rate limits, leaving minor gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, returns, notes) and front-loaded key information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, but some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the parameter explanations are detailed but slightly verbose). Overall, it earns its place with useful details without excessive fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, and behavioral notes. However, it lacks explicit error handling details beyond the 'limit' validation and doesn't mention pagination or API rate limits, which could be relevant for a query tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return value.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 4 parameters: explains what each filter does (e.g., 'remote' for remote jobs, 'country' with case-insensitivity and formatting rules), specifies defaults, and includes validation for 'limit'. The 'ctx' parameter is noted as automatically provided, clarifying its internal use. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Query Web3 job listings from the web3.career API with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('query'), resource ('Web3 job listings'), and source ('web3.career API'), making it highly specific. Since there are no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed, but the description stands alone as complete.

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 mention of 'optional filters' and the detailed parameter explanations, suggesting when to use specific filters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for job searches vs. other data queries), and there are no sibling tools to compare against. This results in implied but not explicit usage guidelines.

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