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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: expired postings are excluded by default, the archived set is 'far larger', and include_archived uses preset=analysis. These details go beyond annotations and clarify the default scope and the trade-off of turning on archiving.

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 four succinct sentences, all informative. It front-loads the main purpose and filters, then covers the default behavior, the archived option, and the text search hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 search tool with ten well-documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety, the description is complete. It resolves the key ambiguity between open and archived postings, provides scaling context, and gives practical usage guidance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description adds semantic value for include_archived by explaining its purpose (searching full history) and the scale difference, and for text by stating it matches titles and descriptions. These enrich the schema descriptions without redundancy.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'humanitarian job listings on ReliefWeb', identifies the filtering dimensions (country, organization, career category, theme, experience level), and explicitly notes that it returns current open positions with expired postings excluded by default. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job by implying a search over a set rather than a single record.

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?

Provides clear context for when to enable include_archived (for full history vs. current snapshot) and when to use text search (for role titles and job descriptions). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_job for fetching a single job by ID, so the routing to siblings is left implicit.

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