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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does: no login required, results ordered newest first, deduplicated source, and explicit exclusion of hourly/per-diem/internship roles. It also enumerates the returned fields, including derived signals like AI exposure and 12-month layoff notices, so the agent knows what to expect without an output schema.

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 the invocation trigger, then scope/exclusions, then return shape — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It runs long as a single dense block and could be split into when-to-use, scope, and returns for faster scanning, which keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: eligibility trigger, data source, freshness ordering, exclusions, auth requirements, and the exact fields returned. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by showing how the filters combine in practice ('remote director roles', 'senior finance manager in Denver'), which demonstrates realistic query/level/remote/location usage beyond the field-level text.

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 and resource (search current professional job openings) and immediately bounds scope: NextChapter's own deduplicated board, U.S. employers, newest first, hourly/per-diem/internship roles excluded. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like recent_layoff_notices or ai_exposure_for_job_title, which are single-signal lookups rather than job listings.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions with three concrete example utterances spanning role, location, remote, and post-layoff intent, which is more than most defs offer. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this / use X instead' routing line to a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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