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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the bar is lower; the description adds useful behavior beyond them — result cap of 30, each match includes an explanation and an apply link, and an anonymous search record is kept. This is meaningful disclosure the annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then return shape, the key roles constraint, the usage trigger, and a privacy note. Every sentence carries information, though the privacy note and the return-format line could be tightened given an output schema exists.

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 8 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the critical invocation constraint (role-title matching) and the primary usage trigger. The only omission is guidance on the undocumented excludedCompanies parameter and any explicit relation to the sibling tool.

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 88% (baseline 3), and the description still adds real semantics: 'A job's title must match one of the roles, so include the usual names for the same job,' which explains why the roles array should carry synonyms. It does not clarify excludedCompanies, the one param lacking a schema description.

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 ('Searches verified, currently open jobs') plus the scope (Argentina/LATAM) and the dimensions searched (role, skills, location, work mode). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling match_jobs_to_cv, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use it when the user says what kind of job they want,' and implies the request should be role/title driven. It never names match_jobs_to_cv or states when not to use this tool, so the alternative-selection condition is left to inference.

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