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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (ids, titles, URLs) and that only 'live' listings are searched, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the return values in second position. Everything present earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully lists returned fields, and the annotation set covers safety. However, for a tool whose name barely differs from the sibling 'search_jobs', the definition leaves the agent without the differentiation or query-format detail needed to invoke it confidently over its twin.

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 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It partially does by stating the search is 'by free text', telling the agent the input is a natural-language string rather than a structured filter, but it adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail.

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 names a specific verb (Search), resource (live English-teaching jobs in South Korea on LucyESL) and input mode (free text), so the agent knows exactly what is being queried. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search_jobs', which by name appears to do the same thing, leaving the agent unable to choose between them.

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 over search_jobs, get_job, fetch, or the stats tools. 'Search live ... jobs' implies a listing/lookup use case but the agent gets no exclusions or alternative routing.

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