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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds sort ordering ('newest first') and the matching rule (keyword against title, summary, required skills), which are behavioral details not in annotations. Good added context, though it omits pagination behavior despite a page param.

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 sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering, then the match rule and return fields. No wasted words; every clause adds 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?

Covers purpose, ordering, matching semantics, and even enumerates returned fields despite no output schema, which is helpful. Minor gap: no mention of pagination limits or empty-result behavior, but overall sufficient for invocation.

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 coverage is 75% and documents city, page, and query with examples; type is enum-bare without a description. The description adds matching semantics for the query parameter (which fields it searches), which is genuine value, but adds nothing for city/type/page.

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 job and internship openings) and a distinguishing scope ('Live ... on Youth4work ... newest first'). Clearly separable from siblings like search_colleges and search_talent, which target different resources.

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 'Live job and internship openings' framing implies the tool's domain, but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of search_colleges/search_talent as alternatives. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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