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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it enumerates exactly which fields come back, flags that salary only appears "if published," and notes the application link is a 60-second process needing no CV — details an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences: what it does, how filters behave, then what comes back. The return information is front-loaded where an agent needs it and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 properly takes on the job of describing return fields and their conditionality, and it covers the filter-combination semantics. Minor gaps remain around result limits and ordering, which matter for a search tool capped at 50 results.

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 75% and the three documented parameters already carry examples and the OTHER=apprenticeship mapping. The description contributes the AND-combination semantics of the filters, which is a meaningful addition, but says nothing about limit or pagination behavior, so it does not fully compensate for the one undocumented parameter.

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?

"Search open positions" gives a specific verb and resource, and the return summary makes clear it is a search/list operation rather than a single-record lookup. It does not explicitly name get_job or get_employer as the alternatives for retrieving one specific posting, so the sibling distinction is only implied.

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" is genuinely useful guidance about how to compose a query, and it implies the tool works with any subset of filters. However, there is no statement about when to use this versus get_job/get_employer, nor any note on result-set behavior when filters are broad.

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