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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that: retrieval is 'deterministic semantic scoring' over 'instructions, examples, outputs, and next steps.' It does not disclose ranking guarantees, tie-breaking, or how limit interacts with scoring.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted filler. It is dense but efficient; the mild cost is that compactness comes at the expense of the parameter detail an agent actually needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves key inputs (surface, product) and their effect undocumented. An agent cannot determine how to scope a query from this definition alone.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails to meet it. It never explains 'surface' (buyer_job/implementation_capability/research_evidence/all), 'product', 'limit', or 'schema_version' – the single most consequential parameter, 'surface', is completely undocumented.

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: 'Select RQM buyer jobs ... using deterministic semantic scoring.' An agent can tell it is a relevance-search tool, distinct from list_buyer_jobs by implication of scoring rather than enumeration. However, it never names the sibling it competes with, and 'from work-language requests' is jargon that blurs the actual input.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The obvious alternative, list_buyer_jobs, is never mentioned, nor is the condition (semantic/ranked retrieval vs. plain enumeration) that would select this tool. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'semantic scoring.'

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