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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the original application URL is never returned, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, default sorting, or whether results are real-time or cached. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, which is appropriately concise. The key behavioral note about application URL is front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing what it returns (e.g., summary, not full details) and mentioning the output is public. There is no wasteful text.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not specify the response format, pagination, or how results are ordered. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by describing the return value structure, but it only states 'public job details.' This leaves agents guessing what fields are returned.

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?

Only 'query' and 'remoteLocation' have descriptions in the schema, yielding 29% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter explanations, but it does mention that results are public job details, which informs what the query returns. The baseline for low coverage is 2, and the description provides minimal compensation, so score 3.

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 the purpose clearly as 'Search Hidden Jobs offers' and mentions it returns public job details. It partially distinguishes from siblings by noting it never returns the original application URL. However, 'Hidden Jobs' is ambiguous and could be confused with the sibling 'get_job' which likely returns full job details.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for searching job listings while 'get_job' is for retrieving a specific job, nor does it explain when 'open_application_link' would be used. There is some implied usage via the sibling names, but no explicit exclusions or context.

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