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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, closed-world lookup, and the description usefully adds that it takes about a minute and requires no CV, which sets agent expectations. It also enumerates the returned fields, though it says nothing about result ordering or what an empty result set looks like.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the domain scope, then the filter semantics, then the return shape. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and linking behavior, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The remaining gap is pagination/limit behavior, minor for a small five-parameter search 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 60%: query, location and profession are already documented in the schema, and employment_type and limit are not. The description's contribution is the AND-combination rule, which is genuinely beyond the schema, but it does not explain the limit parameter's interaction with total matches.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search open positions') and scopes it to three therapy professions in Germany, so an agent immediately knows the domain. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_job, though the verb 'search' versus 'get' makes the split inferable.

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?

'All filters are optional and combined with AND' tells the agent how to compose the inputs, and the profession list clarifies what can be searched. It stops short of stating when to prefer get_job for a single known posting or what to do with zero results.

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