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

Annotations already establish read-only safety, so the description's job is lighter. It adds one useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'Defaults to no-spend', which tells the agent the default filtering behavior. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what 'attributed' means, but with annotations covering the safety profile a 3 is appropriate.

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, and the core scope is front-loaded. The term 'no-spend' is compact to the point of being slightly cryptic, but the description earns its length.

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 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a crowded sibling field, two sentences are insufficient. It doesn't clarify the three unexplained parameters, does not say what the results look like, and gives no way to distinguish this from the half-dozen similar search/find 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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'funded' maps to funded_only and 'no-spend' maps to no_spend_only. But q, limit, and types are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Search') and a fairly specific resource ('internal funded jobs plus attributed external opportunities'), which separates it from many of the sibling search tools. The phrase 'attributed external opportunities' is somewhat ambiguous, and it doesn't name a distinguishing sibling, but the combined scope is identifiable enough.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the many overlapping siblings (search_external_earn, search_global_market, find_funded_work, get_opportunities, etc.). No exclusions, no conditions, no mention of what this tool is not for.

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