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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: pagination mechanics and the fact that results carry the company's application URL plus a rolefig page, with no application submission. No rate limits or result-size behavior are disclosed.

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?

Two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and then the filter/paging mechanics. Every clause maps to a parameter or behavior, though the long filter list reads as a run-on that could be broken for scannability.

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?

With 11 optional params and no output schema or schema descriptions, the description adequately covers filtering, sorting, paging, and the notable fields in the returned openings. The gaps (default/max limit, cursor naming consistency between 'after' and 'nextCursor') are minor but real.

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 carries the full param burden and does so well: it decodes q, workplace, employment type, country as ISO code, region as a code like CA, company slug, postedWithin (7 or 30 days), minPay as minimum annual USD, sort values, and the after cursor. It omits limit (default 50, max 100) and slightly narrows postedWithin to '7 or 30' though the schema accepts any number.

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 and resource (search current openings) and clarifies scope: 'across every company,' which implicitly contrasts with list_company_openings. However, it never names or rules out the close sibling demo_search_jobs, so an agent must infer which search tool to pick.

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?

Gives clear operating context: what can be filtered, how to sort, and how to page (repeat the search with nextCursor as after). It also sets a boundary by noting rolefig never submits applications. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or routing to get_job/list_company_openings.

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