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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are ids with citable URLs, a single fetch is the read step, and the operation is free (no cost/credits implication). It omits pagination or result-count limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the closing 'Returns ids with citable URLs; read one with fetch. Free.' efficiently covers output and cost. The middle clause is a dense comma-laden list, slightly straining readability but still earning its place.

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 structure needn't be spelled out, and the description still flags ids/URLs plus the free-of-charge aspect. For a single-parameter, read-only search tool this is essentially complete; only the absence of guidance versus sibling discovery tools keeps it from a 5.

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('What you are looking for, any language'), the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the breadth of the corpus, not query syntax, length limits, or language behavior beyond what the schema states, 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 (search) and resource (everything JOBFLOW knows), and enumerates the content domains covered (field knowledge per trade, components and prices, guarantees, agent pricing). It also implicitly separates itself from the fetch sibling by saying results are ids to be read with fetch.

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 clear usage context — search broadly, then use fetch to read a specific result — which is an explicit follow-up routing instruction. It does not, however, say when to prefer it over sibling discovery tools like discover or intent_match, so exclusions are missing.

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