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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are compact, the candidate should receive the click_url, and the agent must not apply on their behalf. It does not go into pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the annotations lower the burden.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, result shape, required follow-up, and candidate-handling instruction.

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 search tool with 12 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key decisions an agent must make: search, then fetch the job via get_job, pass along click_url, and avoid applying on the candidate's behalf. It does not enumerate every filter, but the schema and output schema cover those details.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameters like limit, cursor, domain, remote, contract, and function_id remain undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not clarify how the free-text q or filters relate to the search behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('live Belgian or Luxembourg legal jobs on LexGO'), and adds that results are compact and lack descriptions. This distinguishes it from sibling get_job, which retrieves a single job's details.

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?

It gives clear workflow guidance: use search_jobs to find jobs, then 'Call get_job before recommending,' and explicitly says not to apply on the candidate's behalf. It names the relevant sibling tool, though it does not systematically contrast search_jobs with every alternative such as list_taxonomies.

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