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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not obliged to restate it. It adds genuine value beyond the annotations: the AND semantics of `query` ('every word must match'), the related-results fallback with match: "related", and the public-listings-only constraint.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and matching semantics before filters and constraints. No filler, though the final sentence ('Results are public listings only') partially restates the opening 'publicly listed' qualifier.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully hints at the return shape via the match: "related" field, and covers matching behavior, scope, and available filters. Missing pieces are minor: pagination behavior for a page param capped at 100, and no indication of result ordering defaults beyond the sort enum.

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 63%, so several parameters (page, sort, workMode) are undocumented in the schema. The description names the filter families (location, work mode, compensation, featured, recency, sort) mapping them loosely to parameters, and clarifies `query` matching semantics beyond the schema. That is adequate but not a full compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource with scope qualifiers: 'Search currently active, reviewed, publicly listed Hirehouse roles.' An agent knows this is a job search returning listings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings show_jobs, get_job, or compare_jobs, so the sibling-differentiation credit is not earned.

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 implied by the scope statement ('publicly listed roles only') and the filter list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer show_jobs, get_job, or compare_jobs. The fallback rule for empty results is described, which is useful behavioral context rather than usage routing.

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