Get Posting Rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that counts are of *unique* US postings (a de-duplication/counting semantics point not in the schema) — but says nothing about pagination, ordering of ranked results, or what happens to facets with zero matches.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the constraint; nothing is padded. The second sentence slightly restates a schema 'required' declaration, but the emphasis is defensible for a filter that will hard-fail if omitted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with a nested filter object and additionalProperties-based 'native JPA filter fields', the description is thin: it does not enumerate valid facets, does not explain limit behavior, and does not clarify how additional filter fields are interpreted, leaving real ambiguity for a non-trivial schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description must carry weight. It adds value by naming example facet values and flagging the required 'when' filter, but the valid facet vocabulary is open-ended ('such as'), and 'limit' (default 10, max 100) and the meaning of extra nested filters, including the 'type' enum on the date object, are not explained at all.

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?

States a specific verb and metric ('Rank a facet ... by unique US postings') and gives two concrete facet examples (skills_name, company_name), so the operation is immediately understandable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_posting_statistics, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only guidance is the hard requirement 'filters.when is required', which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to pick this over get_posting_statistics or get_benchmark_metadata, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required filter.

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