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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the sort order ('newest first') and what each result contains (both the Applystead job page and the employer's posting), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the key scoping plus ordering facts are front-loaded before the return-content note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With 7 optional filter parameters fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: ordering and result composition. It could go further by routing to the sibling tools, but otherwise it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 all 7 parameters are already well documented, including enum, ranges, and patterns. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and resource ('open jobs'), plus a meaningful scope constraint: jobs posted on employers' own application systems, returned newest first. This distinguishes it somewhat from get_company_jobs and check_job_posting, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_company_jobs or check_job_posting, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the broad discovery tool and the siblings are narrower lookups.

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