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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: deduplication/normalization behavior, 15-minute refresh cadence, the meaning of 'data_as_of', the 'boards_truncated' truncation signal and a stated cost of 1 credit. It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, filters, default behavior, freshness field, truncation field, cost), with scope front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description proactively explains two return fields ('data_as_of' and 'boards_truncated') plus the dedup/normalized shape, which covers the main ambiguity for a search tool. It doesn't describe the full result record or pagination/limit interaction, leaving a small gap.

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 documents all six parameters (limit, location, remote_only, posted_after, title_keywords, companies). The description's filter list adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Searches) and resource (open roles across many company job boards) and adds 'in a single call' plus 'deduplicated, normalized list', which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-company sibling get_company_jobs. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the key branch: 'Without a company list it searches the whole tracked directory', and enumerates the available filters. It gives clear context for invocation but never explicitly names get_company_jobs as the alternative for a single company, so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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