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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing operational behavior an agent can act on: the shared `/search` anti-bot gate, the `upstream_blocked` failure mode, that blocked attempts are not billed, and the 5-credit cost. This is exactly the kind of quota/error context annotations cannot express.

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 with zero filler: purpose and return shape first, then failure/billing semantics. The reference to 'the `/search` anti-bot gate `google.search` already documents' efficiently avoids restating shared behavior.

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 8-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload contents, error mode and pricing. The only real gap is pagination/result-set size (the `start` offset is never mentioned), which matters for a list-returning tool.

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 88%, so the schema already documents gl, hl, tld, uule, start and country_code. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all, not even clarifying the precedence of country_code vs gl or what the undocumented cache_max_age does. Baseline 3 applies.

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/resource ('Job postings for a query') and enumerates the fields returned (title, company, location, source board), which makes it clearly a job-listing search rather than a general web search. It stops short of naming the sibling it competes with (google_search, google_news), so an agent must infer the boundary from the field list alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: query-based job search. There is no explicit 'use this instead of google_search when...' or when-not guidance, and nothing about whether it covers aggregator boards vs. direct employer listings, so the agent has to infer selection from the returned-field list.

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