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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive search. The description adds useful behavioral context: live job listings, filter interpretation, a maximum of 20 results, and the fields returned for each match.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core search behavior, and then covers filter interpretation and return shape without filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers query interpretation, result limits, and returned fields. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify its relationship to the sibling search_jobs tool.

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 already adequate. The description adds meaning by explaining that plain-language words are interpreted as filters across specific dimensions such as region, student age, housing, schedule, visa, and direct hire.

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 and resource: searching live English-teaching jobs in South Korea on LucyESL. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling search_jobs, which appears to be an overlapping search operation.

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?

It explains that the query should be plain language and that words for region, age, housing, schedule, visa, or direct hire are treated as filters. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_jobs, fetch, or get_job.

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