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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: results are ordered newest first with open jobs before unclear ones, jobs that rule the country out are never returned, verdicts come with a quoted reason, and the data source is a daily index of public job boards.

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 and example phrasings are front-loaded, and the return-format sentence is dense but informative. It is somewhat long and re-enumerates enum values already carried by the schema, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers triggering conditions, filtering options, ordering, exclusion rules and returned fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, its enums, bounds and defaults. The description largely restates those enum values and defaults; it adds only the 'up to 5 words that must all appear' constraint on keywords, which is also present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource with a clear scope constraint: jobs a person 'can be hired for from a country'. The sibling tools (feedback reply/submit) are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed, and the constraint that out-of-scope countries are excluded sharpens the purpose further.

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?

Gives concrete triggering utterances ('remote jobs I can get from Vietnam', 'crypto jobs hiring in Brazil') that map user phrasing directly to the tool, which is strong positive guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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