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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations cannot convey: the token cost (~170 per posting, ~3020 for 20), which lets an agent budget pageSize. Pagination defaults and rate limits are not 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?

Three labeled lines (Purpose / When / Cost), each carrying distinct information, with purpose front-loaded. No sentence is redundant and the cost line is unusually high-value for a 17-parameter search tool.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description needs only framing — which it provides, including the cost model and a prerequisite. The remaining gap is guidance on paging/sorting strategy and pointing to job_postings_search_fields for the enum-heavy filters, which the schema references but the description does not reinforce.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly, including enum meanings and resolution behavior. The description only hints at the two most important filters (role and location) via "gather a role and a location first" and adds nothing about sorting, paging, or the salary/experience interactions — baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Find job postings") plus the matching facets (role, location, fields) and the return shape ("a short summary per posting"), which implicitly separates it from job_postings_get_full_description. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

"When: The user describes work they want; gather a role and a location first" gives a clear trigger condition plus a prerequisite to satisfy before calling. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. when the user already has a posting ID, use job_postings_get_full_description), so no exclusions or explicit alternatives are offered.

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