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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the required scopes (jobs:search + jobs:read) and the idempotent retry contract via request_id, which explains why the operation is marked idempotent despite not being read-only.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the permissions and retry caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 cursor-pagination tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (next page of jobs, updated cursors, whether exhaustion is signaled). It covers permissions and retry but leaves the return behavior and pagination termination unstated.

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% and both parameters are required, so the description must compensate. It does explain request_id's retry semantics and implies search_id comes from the prior 'explicit search', but it never states that search_id is the ID returned by the initial search call or what format it takes (32-hex).

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 ('Extend') and resource ('an explicit search using its provider cursors'), which distinguishes it from search_jobs (initiating a search) and list_search_results (reading results). It does not name a sibling directly, but the phrase 'explicit search' makes the pagination role clear.

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?

Implies the tool is used to continue a previously initiated search, and gives a retry rule ('retry with the same request_id'), which is useful operational guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_jobs or list_search_results, nor any precondition that a prior search_id must exist.

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