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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds non-obvious operational facts: results come only from the first page and cap at 20, and a zero-match search is still billed while errors are not. That cost/limit disclosure is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and returns, followed by query guidance, exclusions, and billing rules. No sentence is redundant with the schema or repeats the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields and the 20-result first-page ceiling. Combined with the named alternative, query example, and billing note, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly for a four-parameter search tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value for the dominant parameter by prescribing its shape ('put role and place in the query') rather than merely restating 'job search text'. It says nothing extra about results, country, or language beyond the schema defaults, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 ('Searches Google Jobs') plus the aggregation source and result cap, and enumerates the returned fields (title, company, location, via, details, apply_url). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_linkedin_jobs, so an agent can separate the two job-search tools without opening either schema.

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 query-construction guidance with an example ('data engineer jobs in Austin'), names an explicit alternative and the condition selecting it ('for LinkedIn listings with LinkedIn filters use search_linkedin_jobs'), and rules out what it won't cover (full descriptions, people profiles). The 'required: query' note and the no-match billing caveat round out the usage picture.

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