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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are public, default to open status, use integer-credit budgets, and support cursor pagination. However, it omits key behavioral details: whether authentication is required (though the schema notes api_key is deprecated and not needed), result ordering, rate limits, and the full shape of returned job data.

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 two tightly written sentences with no waste. The core purpose and return scope are front-loaded, and pagination behavior is appended efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers defaults, public scope, budget units, and pagination. But it leaves gaps around authentication expectations, result field descriptions, ordering, and maximum page size behavior. The schema covers parameters well, but the description should do more to compensate for the missing output schema and annotation layer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds only marginal context by restating that the default status is open and budgets are in integer credits. It does not provide additional parameter syntax, fallback behavior, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Vorn open job board.' It also scopes the result set to public jobs with a default status of open, which helps distinguish it from personal job tools like jobs_my_work or jobs_get. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls short of full 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jobs_get, available_work, or jobs_my_bids. The description only states what the tool does, not the scenario or conditions that call for it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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