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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: 90-day time window, max 20 results, promoted listings appear first and marked, and suggestion to follow up with getJobDetails. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 a single paragraph with several sentences, but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, exclusions, capabilities, limitations, follow-up suggestion, and examples. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly longer than necessary; still 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description effectively conveys expected results by mentioning 'max 20 results', 'promoted listings appear first (marked)', and recommending getJobDetails for full info. It covers limitations and filtering behavior, making it complete for a search 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by listing supported filter dimensions (role type, seniority, location, company, salary, remote, technology tag) and providing concrete query examples that clarify parameter usage. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Search 500+ quantum computing job listings') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by saying 'NOT for research papers (use searchPapers) or researcher profiles (use searchCollaborators)'. It also lists common use cases like job openings and career opportunities.

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 clearly says when to use ('Use when the user asks about job openings, career opportunities, hiring, or specific positions in quantum computing') and explicitly names alternative tools for other intents. This is exemplary guidance.

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