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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that results are partial ('best few in a compact form') and pageable via next_offset, which prevents an agent from assuming it got everything. It doesn't say whether auth is required, whether results are capped server-side, or how paging terminates, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the return shape, then the alternative and filtering advice. Every clause carries information; there is no boilerplate.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-shape and pagination context that the schema cannot. It stops short of describing what fields the compact lead record contains (title, budget, skills?), which would fully close the loop for an agent deciding whether to page or drill in.

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%, including enum meanings for sort, type and market, so the schema already does the semantic work. The description only adds a strategic note that market, remote, since and skills are the narrowing levers — useful but not new per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource pair ('Find job vacancies and freelance orders') that immediately identifies the domain, then states the return shape ('best few in a compact form'). It also routes a follow-up to get_lead_details, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call get_lead_details for full text and contacts of matching leads, and advises narrowing with market/remote/since/skills 'instead of reading many pages' — a direct when-to-use and how-not-to-use statement. Nothing about the browse-then-detail workflow 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.