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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaning beyond that by disclosing the auth requirement ('works without an account') and the return shape ('matching sections with URLs'). What it does not say is whether results are ranked, how empty results are represented, or whether search is keyword-based or semantic, which keeps it below a 5.

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, no filler, and the topic scope plus return format are front-loaded before the account note. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, so the bar is low, and the safety profile plus auth note largely cover it. The remaining gap is parameter semantics: with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is the only place where an agent could learn what 'question' and 'limit' mean, and it omits both.

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%, so the description must clarify both parameters, and it does not. The phrase 'filters, limits, MCP setup, errors' reads as documentation topics, and could even be misread as parameter names, while neither 'question' (a natural-language query, up to 500 chars) nor 'limit' (result count, default 5, max 10) is explained. The only hint is 'return matching sections', which loosely implies that limit caps the number of sections returned.

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 the Headcount Labs docs), enumerates the covered topical scope (filters, limits, MCP setup, errors), and describes the output shape (matching sections with URLs). It is clearly distinct from all siblings, which deal with jobs, markets, and salaries. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, but the subject matter alone separates it.

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 states that the tool works without an account, which tells the agent it can be called in unauthenticated contexts. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites beyond the login detail. Usage is therefore only implied by the topic list.

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