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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: this returns the full match set rather than a truncated preview, and pagination terminates when data.next_page is null. That pagination loop detail is the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The primary scope statement comes first, then the pagination rule, then the required input source — a well-ordered, front-loaded definition.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers the essentials of scope, pagination, and the required ID source. The gap is the unexplained search_id and sort semantics for a tool whose schema coverage is only 25%.

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 only 25%, so the description has to carry more weight. It explains company_id's origin ('from the search results') and the pagination loop, but says nothing about search_id or the sort options (relevance/newest/highest_pay are only weakly self-explanatory). It also refers to 'data.next_page' where the schema says 'results.next_page', which could confuse an agent about the response shape.

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 ('Read all matching jobs for a company') and scopes it to a ready search, explicitly contrasting with 'just its three preview jobs'. An agent can tell this is the exhaustive listing rather than a preview, though it never names the sibling tools (e.g. search.get, following.openings.list) it might be confused with.

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?

'in a ready search' and 'Use company.id from the search results' give clear preconditions, and the preview contrast implies when to reach for this instead of a preview view. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it falls just under the 5 bar.

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