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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses critical behavior: query matches titles only (case-insensitive substring), unmarked work_mode means 'unstated not onsite', results are active listings with newest-first default, and pagination requires passing next_cursor with all other arguments identical. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but organized: purpose first, then filtering nuances, then sort, then pagination. No wasted words, though it is longer than average. Each sentence earns its place for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

Given the complexity (10 params, no output schema), the description covers the most important behavioral quirks: matching rules, identifier sources, work_mode semantics, sorting, and pagination. It also references sibling tools for lookups. The remaining params (has_comments, include_total, posted_within) are self-explanatory from schema. This is complete for invocation purposes.

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?

The description adds meaning that schema descriptions don't fully convey: query semantics, company/location source constraints, work_mode nuance, sort meaning, and cursor usage. It compensates for missing schema descriptions on work_mode and page_size, and enriches the other fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search JobYap's aggregated job postings with structured filters.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_job (single job) or search (likely generic), while also implying a structured search vs. free-form.

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?

It provides clear context: companies must come from list_companies and locations from search_locations, which implicitly tells the agent to call those tools first. It also advises trying synonyms or shorter tokens when results are thin. However, it doesn't explicitly state when *not* to use this tool versus the 'search' sibling.

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