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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scoping behavior that only active/ongoing postings are returned, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or failure behavior.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the resource and intent before stating argument optionality. The bilingual phrasing is somewhat repetitive, but the English sentence adds distinct brand examples, so every clause still earns its place.

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 broad search tool with four fully documented optional parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, job categories, example brands, and argument optionality. It is adequate for correct invocation, though explicit routing to get_job for individual posting details would strengthen it further.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's examples and role categories add search context but do not materially clarify parameter behavior beyond what the input schema already states, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching active retail job postings at luxury brand boutiques, department stores, and duty-free shops in Korea. It also names concrete job roles (CA/SA/BA, beauty advisor, store manager, VMD) and brand examples, which clearly separates it from siblings like get_job and get_salary_benchmark.

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?

The description clearly identifies when to use the tool: to search ongoing job postings in Korea, and it explicitly notes that all arguments are optional. It does not explicitly contrast with get_job or get_salary_benchmark, but the search-versus-get framing gives adequate context.

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