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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description corroborates the closed corpus by naming the Actual group and France as scope, and adds a genuine behavioral constraint that filter values must be exact French facet values, which will silently fail or misbehave otherwise. It does not describe pagination behavior or what happens with invalid filter values, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the search scope before the filter-sourcing rule and the follow-up tool. Every sentence carries distinct information the agent needs.

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 11-parameter, no-output-schema search tool with full schema descriptions and read-only annotations, the description covers corpus, combination semantics and the two follow-up paths. It could say more about result volume or pagination expectations, but nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining how parameters combine (free-text query plus town plus filters) and by pre-empting the facet-value trap for contractType, family, industry and region. It does not add format detail beyond the schema for q, lang, page, sort, radius or pageSize.

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 job offers') and bounds the corpus precisely: offers published by Actual group in France, spanning temporary, fixed-term and permanent contracts. An agent immediately knows what this tool returns and that it is a search/listing operation.

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 describes the search workflow (combine free-text query with town and filters) and routes to two named siblings with the condition for each: list_offer_facets for exact French filter values, get_offer with a result's slug for the full offer. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at full strength.

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