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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real behavior: results are newest-first, capped at 10, and enumerate the fields returned. It doesn't mention error or empty-result behavior, but the added ordering and cap are substantive beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the use case, mechanism, and return shape front-loaded in that order. The opening audience framing ('For a person looking for a job') is slightly redundant with 'Searches open vacancies... in Tanzania' but still orients before the specifics.

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 lists the returned fields and result cap, and it pins down geographic scope. What's missing is guidance on the keyword parameter and on behavior with no matches — minor for a two-parameter read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 50%: `query` is documented in the schema, and `limit` self-documents via min/max/default. The description reinforces the cap ('returns up to 10') but never tells the agent it can pass a title/keyword filter, so it does not fully close 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 — 'searches open vacancies on the CV Chap Chap jobs board' — plus explicit scope ('Tanzania only'). This is clearly distinguishable from the CV-authoring siblings (check_cv, save_cv_draft, find_cv_templates), which do not touch job listings.

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?

'For a person looking for a job in Tanzania' establishes the use case and 'Covers Tanzania only' rules out out-of-scope queries. It never names an alternative tool or says when not to call it, but no sibling overlaps in function, so the remaining gap is small.

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