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

Annotations already signal readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: billing is per row returned and an empty page bills nothing, unknown criteria fields hard-error instead of being silently dropped, agencies and expired postings are excluded by default, pagination uses `cursor` from the prior `next_cursor`, and a missing key yields a signup link. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the WHEN clause and the one-call value proposition, then layers in criteria semantics, output shape, billing/auth, and the sibling alternative. Dense but every sentence carries information; the inline field enumerations are the only mildly heavy part.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly describes the returned rows (company name, posting URL, seniority, skills, declared/estimated pay the salary params bracket). Combined with billing, auth, and pagination notes it is close to complete, though a couple of secondary parameters remain undocumented.

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?

With schema coverage at only 10%, the description does the heavy lifting: it defines the three criteria groups (company/req/event) with their fields, the AND-across-fields / OR-within-one semantics, shows a concrete example, and explains `cursor`, `limit`, and how `salary_min_usd`/`salary_max_usd` bracket pay. It leaves `since`, `live_only`, `idempotency_key`, and `exclude_agencies` (only implied by 'excluded by default') unexplained, so a few gaps remain.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('find live roles matching an ICP') and sharpens it with the operational outcome: matching open roles as actionable rows in ONE call rather than a search followed by per-company lookups. It also differentiates from sibling `who_is_hiring_for` (first look without a key), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit WHEN clause ('an agent already knows its ideal customer profile') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('For a first look at who is hiring before you have a key, use `who_is_hiring_for`'). It also states the precondition that an API key is required and what happens without one.

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