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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value: page cap of 20, what each result carries (application links, freshness, match evidence), and an explicit non-mutation guarantee ('Never applies, changes preferences or generates scores'). It does not cover pagination termination or rate/result-count limits beyond the page cap.

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, zero filler: capability, routing rationale, and return/side-effect contract are all front-loaded in that order.

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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers capability, the sibling alternative, result shape, and the no-mutation contract adequately. The remaining gap is filter-combination semantics (countries with remote_scope, salary_floor interaction), which is the weakest documented part of the whole definition.

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% (3 of 8 params), so the description is expected to compensate but instead says only 'explicit filters'. It never explains query vs countries interaction, seniority/work_mode semantics, or pagination via page, leaving several undocumented filters to be inferred from bare enums and constraints.

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 ('with explicit filters'), and explicitly contrasts with the curated alternative ('discover jobs beyond curated matches'), which separates it from get_matches and get_job.

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 a clear selection context: use this when the agent needs discovery beyond curated matches, implicitly routing away from get_matches. It does not name when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single known posting, use get_job), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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