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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey: result volume (~93,000), default ordering (highest-paying first), and the nature of the returned links (contract page naming the staffing agency). No rate limits or caching behavior disclosed, but the return shape is well described given there is no output schema.

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, zero filler, scope and ordering front-loaded before the link-return explanation. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 four-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers domain scope, ordering, and the return payload adequately. It could say more about combining filters or result pagination beyond the limit parameter, which is the only notable 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 the four parameters (limit, state, specialty, min_weekly_pay) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Search ... travel nursing / allied health contracts') with concrete scope (~93,000 active US contracts) and a stated sort criterion. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_jobs, so an agent must infer that the distinction is contract-type coverage.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (travel/allied contracts with weekly pay) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to or away from search_jobs or get_hospital_wages. Only moderately helpful for selecting among siblings.

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