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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and a meaningful prerequisite—'WhatsApp apply link requires a keyed connection'—which signals an auth-dependent behavior not visible in the schema. The 'Search' verb also implicitly indicates a read-only operation, though pagination and rate limits are not addressed.

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 with no wasted words: the primary action and scope are front-loaded, return fields are compactly listed, and the connection caveat is appended cleanly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 or annotations, the description usefully names the key returned fields, geographic scope, and a special condition about the WhatsApp apply link. It stops short of explaining parameter combinations or response envelopes, but for a simple search tool it is largely complete.

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 descriptions for city and industry are terse, and the description adds only modest value: it clarifies the geographic scope (Costa Rica) and hints at output-related fields, but does not explain parameter formats or how limit interacts with results. With 67% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not compensatory.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('job postings in Costa Rica'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools focused on businesses, events, specials, or general semantic search. Listing the returned fields further confirms it is a jobs-specific search tool.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools, nor are exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The intended use is inferable from the scope, but the description never tells an agent how to route between find_jobs and search_businesses or semantic_search.

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