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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: sort order ('newest first'), page size ('up to 24 per page'), and what each result contains (short description and a link), which is especially valuable with no output schema.

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, zero filler, with the scope, sort order, and result shape front-loaded before the filter list. Everything earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers return shape (24 per page, short description, link) and sorting. It omits pagination depth (the schema caps page at 20) and any mention of the sibling tools for disambiguation, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail, including the enum and defaults. The description restates keyword/city/type filtering but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Search live job and internship listings in India') with scope and sorting, which implicitly separates it from search_global_jobs. It does not explicitly name that sibling or get_job, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 explains what can be filtered but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g. use search_global_jobs for non-Indian roles, get_job for details). Usage is only implied by the India scoping.

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