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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'compact job summaries' (output style), sorts 'newest first', and exposes access-tier limitations ('free tier covers the last 14 days; full access unlocks archive and posted_before'). These are non-obvious runtime behaviors not captured in 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then adding output format, sibling alternative, and access constraints. Every clause adds value with no repetition of schema information.

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 gives enough to understand the tool's role in the family: search returns summaries, get_job gives details, and access tiers affect archive range. Missing explicit return-field details is mitigated by the pointer to get_job and the schema's parameter descriptions, but for a search tool with no output schema, a bit more detail on response shape would help. Overall, it is adequate.

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 covers 80% of parameters with descriptions; the description compensates by explaining the access-tier restriction on posted_before and the 14-day search window, which clarifies how date filters behave. It does not elaborate on q, role, or other params, but those are already well-described in the schema.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Search live startup job listings, newest first.' It also distinguishes itself from get_job by noting it returns compact summaries and that get_job provides full descriptions, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from a key sibling.

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 explicitly tells the user when to use get_job instead ('use get_job for the full description') and gives context criteria ('live startup job listings', 'newest first'). It does not contrast with other siblings like get_company_jobs or job_trends, but the provided guidance is clear and useful.

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