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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety disclosure is needed from the description. The description adds the scope 'published jobs' and the Workable board context, which clarifies what data is included, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination or default sorting (the schema covers pageToken).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose; it is appropriately brief and easy to scan.

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?

The description is minimal, but the extensive input schema and output schema already provide parameter and return details. However, it lacks contextual guidance about when to call this tool instead of other job-related siblings, which is relevant given the wide sibling set. Overall adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100% and every parameter (query, location, companyId, day_range, pageToken, workplace, employment_type) has a descriptive schema entry. The tool description itself adds no parameter explanation, but the schema fully carries the meaning, so a baseline of 3 is 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 uses a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('published jobs on the Workable job board'), making the tool's basic purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_job or get_recommendations, so it could be clearer on differentiation, but the search scope is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_job (single job lookup) or get_recommendations (personalized suggestions). The intended use is only implied by the word 'search' and the tool name; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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