How long these postings have been open

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming exactly which statistics are returned and by framing the tool as a factual report ('reports the numbers rather than guessing'). It does not, however, describe edge cases like empty or unfiltered results.

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 sentences deliver the core metrics first and then provide rationale for the report. No filler or repetition; the description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 rich 11-parameter schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential output semantics even though there is no output schema. It names the computed metrics but does not specify output structure or behavior when no filters are supplied; these are minor gaps given the strong schema coverage.

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 91%, so the parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The tool description only refers to 'a slice of postings' and does not add meaning to any specific parameter, but it also does not need to because the schema carries that weight.

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 a clear purpose: it computes an age profile ('median days since publication, share posted in the last week, and share still open after sixty days') for a filtered slice of postings. This is distinct from the sibling search/get tools and from general job_market_insights because it focuses specifically on how long postings have been open.

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 a use case ('a listing that has been open for months is the most commonly cited sign that a role is not being actively filled'), but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. There is no alternative guidance, so the agent must infer when this aggregate age report is appropriate.

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