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

Annotations only declare it's non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavior beyond that: natural-language input is processed asynchronously and returns a search ID plus processing state, so the agent should not poll rapidly and should retain the ID. That is exactly the operational 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the most important constraint (input XOR query), then the async/polling caveat, then the empty-query default. Four tight sentences, none wasted.

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 needn't be explained, and the async flow and empty-query default are covered. The nested query object has many fields at 60% coverage, so a little semantics is left to the schema, but nothing essential to calling it 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 60%, and the description adds real meaning: the input vs query mutual exclusion, that {} means all openings, and that the ID supports pagination/update. It doesn't elaborate on page, sort, or view beyond the schema, leaving some gap, so 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+resource (search indexed jobs or companies) and immediately scopes it via the input-OR-query rule. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search.get and search.update for follow-up actions, so an agent can tell which search tool to pick.

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?

Explicitly says to supply input OR query, not both; names search.get for async retrieval and search.update for the same search; warns against rapid polling; and explains the empty-query {} case as 'All openings'. Clear when-to-use and which alternatives handle follow-ups.

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