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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the specific data sources, 'newest first' ordering, that each item carries a link to the original post, that the poster is often the hiring manager, and that it also surfaces a ready X search link.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the example queries, then source/ordering details. The example queries and the X-link aside are slightly redundant but each earns some place by clarifying intent. No significant filler.

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 read-only, open-world search tool with no output schema, the description covers sources, sort order, result contents, and a human note about the poster. That is nearly complete for this complexity, though it omits how results behave at low/no matches (e.g., empty result handling).

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 all three parameters (what/where/limit) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter syntax or interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 resource and scope clearly: public posts from people announcing they're hiring, drawn from named sources (HN Who-is-hiring thread, Mastodon, Bluesky). An agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the similarly named sibling 'whats_hiring', so it isn't fully discriminative.

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?

Concrete example queries ('who's posting that they're hiring React developers?', 'any startups hiring remote designers?') give clear context for when to reach for this tool over a generic job search. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion, so the boundary with siblings like whats_hiring or search_jobs is left to inference.

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