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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: results are sorted newest-first and returned paginated. It stops short of explaining cursor lifetime or result-size limits, but that is a modest gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it leaves real information gaps addressed under other dimensions.

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 8-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema tool, this description is far too thin. An agent would need to guess at the meaning of more than half the parameters and has no idea what a result object contains before calling.

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 0% across 8 parameters with ambiguous names (q, by, kind, state, where, cursor, tags, limit), and the description explains none of them. An agent cannot tell from either source what 'by', 'state', or 'where' mean or what query syntax 'q' accepts.

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 public job market'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like listing_search, apps_search, or mesh_search by domain. It does not, however, name or contrast with any of those near-neighbors 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many other search tools (directory_search, source_search, twins_search, listing_search). The only contextual hint is 'newest first, a page at a time', which describes behavior rather than selection criteria.

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