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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: this is a demo catalog and applications are closed, so results are not actionable openings. It omits pagination behavior and result shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the demo/non-actionable caveat and closing with the sibling routing. No filler, though the pass over filterable fields is a bare list rather than tight prose.

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 read-only search with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: dataset nature, filters, and the correct alternative. It would be complete with a word on pagination defaults.

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 0%, so the description must carry semantics, and it maps four of six params to concepts (keywords=query, company, work arrangement=arrangement, minimum annual USD base salary=minSalary). It says nothing about limit/offset pagination or value formats such as the company slug pattern, leaving gaps the schema does not fill either.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Search the sample roles') and immediately frames the tool as a demo catalog of illustrative, closed roles. It names the sibling to use for real openings (search_jobs), so the agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicit routing guidance: use this for sample/illustrative roles, and 'For real openings use search_jobs.' The when-not condition and the named alternative are both stated outright.

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