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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: client-side filtering, scanning up to 10 pages, case-insensitive matching, and a performance tradeoff (more pages slower). No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and key properties, and the second explains the client-side scanning approach and limitations. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it works, parameter defaults and constraints, and a key limitation (only recent jobs). It is sufficient for an agent to use effectively, though not exhaustive (e.g., no example return format).

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: default pages=3, max 10, case-insensitive search, and default remote_only=false. It also explains the scanning behavior (pages = recent pages scanned). This provides useful context beyond the property descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: keyword-search recent Arbeitnow job postings. It specifies the source (Arbeitnow) and the search fields (title, company, tags). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job' or 'list_jobs', though the search function is distinct.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (for searching recent jobs) and explains its limitations (only recent pages, older jobs not found). It does not list alternatives but implies the tool is appropriate for recent searches. The explanation of the upstream API limitation gives clear guidance.

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