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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the editorial scope and content type, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or relevance semantics beyond what the schema and output schema already imply.

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 filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second provides routing guidance. Every phrase earns its place, and the most actionable instruction is front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also includes enough context to distinguish it from job-search siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters, 'limit' and 'query', are clearly described in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema; the optional-query behavior and default limit are already documented.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('editorial articles about the Portugal job market'), then lists concrete content types such as job-hunting guides, salary analysis, and career advice. The closing phrase 'rather than asking for jobs' clearly differentiates it from sibling tool search_jobs.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks how something works — the interview process, an ATS, a specific market or benefit.' It also provides a when-not condition ('rather than asking for jobs'), though it does not name the alternative sibling tool explicitly.

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