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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond by disclosing scope (~2M jobs, no CV required), matching semantics (all words must appear in title/employer/description), ordering (newest first), and the pool_job_id vs public_id distinction that governs downstream apply behavior.

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?

Front-loads real user queries before mechanics, and nearly every clause carries information. The text is dense and somewhat run-on, mixing usage, filters, ID semantics and apply routing in one block without clear separation.

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 6-param open-world search with no output schema, it covers input semantics, result ordering and key return fields (pool_job_id, public_id). The gap is pagination/total-count behavior, which matters given the offset parameter and a two-million-job pool.

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?

With schema coverage at 33%, the description compensates by explaining query matching semantics, remote-only filtering, two-letter country codes, and the posted_within_days window. It does not address limit or offset, so pagination behavior on a 6-param search remains unstated.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Searches the WHOLE live job pool') and immediately distinguishes itself from the CV-based sibling by stating it needs no CV and covers the whole pool, not just matches. The concrete example queries ('find remote data engineer jobs') make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for keyword-based discovery, but 'For jobs ranked against this person's CV use list_matching_jobs instead.' It also names the downstream tools (apply_to_public_job / apply_to_live_job) and which identifier each expects, so the whole flow is inferable.

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