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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does more than repeat the name: it states the data source (direct from employer ATS boards), and discloses that every result includes the employer's real publish date and age in days. It could add pagination/ordering/coverage caveats, but the disclosed behavior is specific and useful.

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 with no filler: the first states the operation and source, and the second explains the differentiating value with a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 a tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to select the tool but not a complete picture: it omits result shape beyond date/age, ordering, pagination, and how filters interact. The self-documenting schema covers parameters, so this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so parameters like query, location, and max_age_days are already self-documented. The description's age-in-days emphasis supports min_age_days and max_age_days, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Search') and resource ('open job postings') and adds meaningful source detail (employers' own Greenhouse, Ashby and Lever boards). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_fresh_boards or check_company, so it misses the top bar for sibling differentiation.

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 freshness example implies a use case (distinguishing newly posted roles from stale ones), and the source statement defines what kind of results to expect. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer search_jobs over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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