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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a hard cap of 20 results per page, pagination via page, and the payload contents (application links, freshness, stored match evidence). It also draws an explicit non-mutation boundary ('Never applies, changes preferences or generates scores'), which is valuable disambiguation from apply_to_job and scoring tools.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then usage routing, then behavior/limits. Front-loaded and every sentence carries information.

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 an 8-param, no-required-param search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, return shape, and hard limits well; the output schema handles return fields. The remaining gap is that filter semantics for the undocumented parameters are left solely to the sparse schema.

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 38% (roughly the three params already documented in the schema: remote_scope, salary_floor, posted_within). The description adds no meaning for the five undescribed filters (page, query, countries, seniority, work_mode) beyond calling them 'explicit filters', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Search the live global job catalog') plus scope ('explicit filters'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from curated siblings by contrasting with 'curated matches'. An agent can separate it from get_matches and get_job without opening schemas.

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 context: 'Use this to discover jobs beyond curated matches', which routes the agent away from the curated-match sibling. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_job for a known ID), so it stops short of a 5.

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