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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the payment requirement and price ($0.005 USDC on Base via x402), data freshness (crawled twice a day), result cap (up to 50 newest matches), and which fields come back (company, location, remote flag, salary when published, posting date, link). It also flags a real gotcha — minSalary only matches jobs that publish pay. It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens if payment fails.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then filters, then return shape, then cost — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The opening sentence is long and packs corpus details that could be compressed, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an eight-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what is searched, how fresh it is, how results are ordered and capped, what fields come back, and that the call costs money. The main remaining gap is differentiation from the sibling job tools, which matters given three of them exist.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including the comma-separated title alternatives and the 1-50 limit. The description restates the filter set ('title words, company, location, remote, minimum yearly salary and posting age') without adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema. The one value-add is the caveat that salary filtering excludes jobs without published pay, which reinforces rather than replaces 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find open jobs') plus the exact corpus it searches (about 20,000 company job boards across named ATSs, ~470,000 jobs crawled twice a day). That is far more precise than a generic job search. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools company_jobs, jobs_new, or jobs_salary, so an agent must infer the split from the names alone.

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 implies the use case well: filtered discovery of open roles by title, company, location, remote, salary floor and posting age. It never says when to prefer this over company_jobs (single-company listing) or jobs_new (freshness feed), and it gives no exclusions or failure modes. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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