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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it reports how the query was interpreted via a 'filters' field and discloses that it may broaden/relax filters to return results. It does not mention result caps or pagination, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: example first, then return shape, then routing advice. Every sentence carries information, though the return-shape clause is packed into a single long sentence that an agent must parse carefully.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (ids, titles, URLs, total, filters, broadened) including the two interpretive fields an agent must read to trust results. Missing only result-volume/pagination behavior.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and a single opaque 'query' parameter, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it explains that salary floors ('over €120k') and exclusions ('no crypto') are understood, and that the query maps onto search_jobs arguments. It stops short of stating grammar limits or what phrasing is unsupported.

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 (natural-language job search) and immediately illustrates it with a concrete query example. It also distinguishes itself from both siblings it could be confused with: 'Use fetch for details' and 'Prefer search_jobs when you can set filters directly.'

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?

Explicit routing: use search_jobs when filters can be set directly, use fetch for full details, otherwise use this free-text entry point. The when-not condition is stated, not implied.

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