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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond them: result cards carry fit verdicts, posting age/freshness, coverage and pagination, up to 10 cards per page, and licence/eligibility remain unassessed. The near_match vs match presentation rule is a genuine behavioral instruction the annotations cannot 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?

It is a single dense run-on paragraph that front-loads purpose well, but the fit/lead/label sentence is syntactically tangled and refers to fields (lead, label) never defined, costing clarity. Much of the content earns its place, but the structure and some phrasing work against readability.

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 10-parameter tool with nested location objects and no output schema, the description does substantial work describing the return shape (fit, posting, coverage, URL pattern) that would otherwise be invisible. What remains thin is coverage of the many search-refinement parameters, which is the main completeness gap.

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 low (20%), so the description must compensate, and it does explain jobTypes enum values, salaryListedOnly, and the non-obvious overlap semantics of minSalary (annual, requested currency, overlapping ranges included). However, many of the 10 parameters — limit, offset, cursor, locale, commuteRadiusMiles, locations, postedOn, remoteOk, hybridOk and most filter sub-fields — get no explanation, leaving a real gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'find live job openings from employer career sites and job boards' — and lists the match dimensions (role/keywords, place, remote, employment type, pay). It does not name the sibling tools (find_similar_jobs, list_company_jobs, get_job) or state how it differs from them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 implied usage context (search by role/place/pay filters, page with offset) and a caution that an empty or short result covers only this search, but no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-a-sibling guidance. The explicit 'use this instead of separate searches' routing for alternative titles lives in the variants schema description, not in the tool description.

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