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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior beyond them: results are truncated to compact JobSpecs without descriptions and ordering follows relevance or recency, which materially shapes how an agent should consume the output.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then the escape hatch to get_job. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details needn't be spelled out, and the description correctly gestures at the compact result shape anyway. What's missing is any hint about combining the many optional filters or pagination behavior, but for a zero-required-parameter search tool the definition is adequate.

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 16 parameters and 63% schema coverage, several filters (limit, offset, remote, seniority, role_family, posted_within_days) carry no description in either place. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so it neither compensates for the gap nor detracts; baseline 3 for mid-coverage schema.

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 ('Search active developer jobs') plus the return shape ('compact JobSpecs, no description') and sort order. It explicitly distances itself from get_job, which returns details, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 line 'Use get_job for details' gives a clear routing rule to the sibling that returns full records. It doesn't state when not to search (e.g. use list_companies for slugs, market_overview for aggregate stats), but the primary alternative is named explicitly.

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