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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Create a new job hunt' without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return value behavior. It does not elaborate on what the creation implies beyond the definition, leaving a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then explaining the concept and prerequisite. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage without extraneous detail. This is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested config object, multiple filter parameters), the description provides essential context about what a job hunt is and the prerequisite relationship with other tools. While it doesn't explain the config structure, the schema covers that in full detail. The description is sufficiently complete for its role, though it could optionally add notes about autoMode or credit consumption, but those are already in the 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 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all parameters. The description's mention of 'titles, locations, skills, salary, etc.' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither detracts nor adds meaningful parameter detail.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' combined with the resource 'job hunt', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explaining that a job hunt is a prerequisite for match_jobs and add_job_to_applications, which provides context on how this tool relates to others.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when starting a new job hunt, and explicitly states that at least one job hunt is needed before using match_jobs or add_job_to_applications. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the dependency information gives solid usage guidance.

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