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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers very little. The parenthetical "ABN-verified employer key" hints at an authorization prerequisite, which is useful, but there is no disclosure of pagination, result caps, default ordering, or whether the call is a safe read. For a 10-parameter search endpoint this is a substantial 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?

A single dense sentence with the resource stated first and the filter inventory following, which is well front-loaded. It is compact rather than padded, though the terse comma-list format sacrifices readability for brevity.

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 tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. Undocumented parameters, absent usage guidance, and no statement of result behavior leave an agent guessing at defaults and constraints.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it does add real value by typing several filters (verified_task is a code, verified_cert a type, verified_skill a badge, min_references is 0-100). However, three parameters (skills, postcode, work_rights) are never mentioned, and the ranges of min_score, min_identity, and min_skills are left unstated.

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 clear verb ("Search") and a specific resource ("searchable seekers"), with a parenthetical identifying the caller's standing as an ABN-verified employer. It is distinguishable in spirit from search_jobs by the resource noun, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two or defines what a "seeker" is in this domain.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer that this is the candidate-facing counterpart to search_jobs purely from the tool name. Nothing is said about required caller state beyond the parenthetical ABN note.

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