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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavior: result cap of 50, 20-per-page with only pages 1-3 available, default ordering of newest-first, and that sort=relevance only applies with a query. It doesn't mention rate limits or empty-result behavior, but the pagination and default-sort disclosure is substantive.

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 first sentence front-loads purpose, then pagination, then return contents, then the optional-args note. It's a single dense paragraph with no wasted clauses, though the run-on enumeration of return fields makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 10-param, fully-optional search tool, the description covers scope, pagination ceilings, default ordering, filter combinability, and return shape. With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and each parameter is documented in-schema (including the sort default and page bounds). The description largely restates those constraints rather than adding syntax or cross-parameter rules (e.g. that relevance requires query is already in the schema), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Search open jobs on workfinds.app") plus scope limits (max 50 results, pages 1-3). The plural/search framing clearly separates it from single-record siblings get_job and get_company.

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?

"Every argument is optional; combine them to narrow the search" gives clear usage context for the filter set. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. "use get_job for a specific posting, list_roles to discover role values"), so it falls short of a 5.

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