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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the non-obvious result cap of 2 jobs per company, the fact that limit counts companies unless a single companySlug is supplied, that a page may hold fewer than limit, and how to page via nextOffset. Those are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Well front-loaded — purpose, return shape, then procedural rules — with no filler sentences. It is long for a description, and a few presentation directives (putting url on the title, card-dedup guidance) sit at the same weight as core search logic, but each rule is actionable.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself ({ jobs, totalMatchingJobs, nextOffset } and per-job fields), query-construction rules, filter-resolution dependencies, pagination, and failure handling. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 69%, and the description adds real meaning on top: array-typed arguments must be passed as arrays even for one value, locationSlug is single-valued and only for user-named locations, and query should be stripped of locations, salary and the user's own position. It leaves the enum-bearing params (standardLevels, employmentTypes, workArrangements) entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Search open jobs on Levels.fyi' — plus the differentiator that results carry pay ranges. It also names the sibling it is not ('Call get-job for a posting's full description'), so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Gives explicit routing rules: resolve locations via search-locations, companies via search-companies, job families via search-job-families, and only one user-named location. It also covers the empty-result case (widen and retry once, then report honestly) and the profile-derived search flow, including the prohibition on calling get-profile without asking.

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