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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that results come as a full ranked page with an opaque continuation cursor and LAYIQ job links. It also explains the anonymous/no-profile limitation and missing company targeting, which meaningfully shapes expected behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return behavior and then key exclusions. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 six-parameter search tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, cursor behavior, and anonymity limits. It could be slightly more complete by routing detail needs to get_job_details and clarifying market/radius semantics.

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?

The description names title, location, remote work, minimum compensation, and the continuation cursor, but it mostly repeats schema fields already documented. With only 67% schema description coverage, it does not compensate for the unexplained market and radiusMiles parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search public job postings by title, location, remote work, and minimum compensation. It is clear enough to distinguish this from a detail-fetching sibling by implication, but it never names get_job_details explicitly.

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?

It clearly states important exclusions: this anonymous tool does not read a profile, compute personal Fit, or support company targeting. That gives useful when-not guidance, but it does not explicitly say when to use get_job_details instead.

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