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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: corpus size, the 20-result cap, and the ranking rule that jobs with verified-working apply links sort first.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads scope and result shape, the second adds the ranking rule. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is padding.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing returns (title, employer, location, pay when listed, job link) and the result cap, which is enough to call the tool confidently. A missing note on whether the 20-result cap means truncated results versus a truly limited corpus is a minor gap.

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 all five parameters (city, state, query, specialty, limit) are already documented with examples. The description only corroborates the 20-result limit and adds no new syntax or constraint detail, so the 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+resource (search hospital jobs) with concrete scope: ~350,000 active US hospital/healthcare staff and permanent roles. The 'staff and permanent roles' framing also implicitly separates it from the travel-contract sibling.

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?

The scope wording implies this is for permanent/staff roles rather than travel contracts, which is useful routing context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over search_travel_contracts or get_hospital_wages, leaving the agent to infer.

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