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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds useful details beyond annotations: it describes the return count (default 10, max 20), ordering (newest first, employers' own postings prioritized), and the fields returned (title, company, place, pay, job page, Apply link). It also explains how a jobId can be used with manage_applications, providing cross-tool workflow context.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples. It is efficient overall, though the final sentence about Apply with Applystead is somewhat tangential and could be trimmed for tighter focus.

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 (seven parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers purpose, input semantics, return fields, ordering, and integration with a sibling tool. It provides enough detail for an agent to call the tool correctly and understand the output without needing an output 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 documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description largely restates schema details for query, remote, remote_country, pay_listed, and posted_within_hours without adding new syntax or format information. Per the rule, repeating structured data does not earn credit beyond the baseline of 3.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Searches open jobs on employers' own career sites'. It gives example queries and distinguishes the scope by noting employers' own postings are prioritized over staffing firms' reposts, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like get_jobs or get_company_jobs.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool with example questions like 'product manager roles at Stripe' or 'remote data engineer jobs in the US'. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the example-driven context is strong enough to guide appropriate use.

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