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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds value by stating that the tool returns ids, titles, and URLs, and that results are 'live' (current) English-teaching jobs. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing the output format and data freshness, though it omits pagination or limit details.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, followed by return format and a pointer to fetch for details. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description provides the core purpose, return format, and a route to fetch details. However, it does not mention how it differs from search_jobs, which could confuse an agent deciding between the two. Since the tool is simple, this is a minor gap, so 4 is fair.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the query is 'free text', which gives basic meaning to the query parameter, but it doesn't provide examples, constraints, or guidance on how to structure the query. This is minimal but sufficient to understand that the parameter is a search string, so a score 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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (live English-teaching jobs in South Korea on LucyESL), and the method (free text). It distinguishes itself from fetch by noting it returns only ids, titles, and URLs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling search_jobs, which may serve a similar purpose. The specificity of 'on LucyESL' helps differentiate, but not naming the sibling leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The description gives a clear alternative for fetching details ('use fetch for a listing's details'), which is helpful. However, it does not address when to use this tool versus the sibling search_jobs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is partial, covering only the fetch alternative.

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